CGT lawsuit filed.
04-01-2006, 08:00 AM
#286
Zonda?
Originally Posted by icon
the enzo does and probably the slr! i'm sure the f1 does not and dont know about the others.
you going to get a zonda f michael?
you going to get a zonda f michael?
I've seen some videos of the car and it really looks outrageous! What are your feelings of the car?
BTW, I sent that e-mail on the subject we talked about the other day and I'm thinking and hoping you'll be OK in a day or two. I want to try and return the favors you've done for me! They do have some great videos to download! I'll be back, Michael
04-01-2006, 12:08 PM
#287
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Les Quam
One thing is very revealing about this discussion. It is now clear what direction the litigation is heading in regard to Porsche.
The plantiff's attorney if he is unable to find a design flaw in Ben's CGT after having it inspected and evaluated by his "objective" expert will then argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to have installed more traction controls as standard on the CGT. He will also argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to require that a CGT buyer have attended a racing school or high performance driving school or DE programs.
Porsche will be faced with resolving the case or taking it to trial and hoping a jury will side with a multinational corporation making enormous profits. It seems to me unlikely any prospective jury pool will contain people like me looking for a 600HP car with liitle or no computer driver aids so we can interact with our CGTs to truly appreciate the lost art of driving.
Hang on to your current CGTs, GT2s and Vipers because as a result of this litigation they will be the last high HP cars EVER to be offered without electronic driver aids. The next question is whether the next generation of such cars will allow us to legally disable or turn off the new driver nannies?????????
My two cents.
The plantiff's attorney if he is unable to find a design flaw in Ben's CGT after having it inspected and evaluated by his "objective" expert will then argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to have installed more traction controls as standard on the CGT. He will also argue that Porsche was negligent for failing to require that a CGT buyer have attended a racing school or high performance driving school or DE programs.
Porsche will be faced with resolving the case or taking it to trial and hoping a jury will side with a multinational corporation making enormous profits. It seems to me unlikely any prospective jury pool will contain people like me looking for a 600HP car with liitle or no computer driver aids so we can interact with our CGTs to truly appreciate the lost art of driving.
Hang on to your current CGTs, GT2s and Vipers because as a result of this litigation they will be the last high HP cars EVER to be offered without electronic driver aids. The next question is whether the next generation of such cars will allow us to legally disable or turn off the new driver nannies?????????
My two cents.
I suspect it would not have made any difference and more than likely most preferred to have the additional safety feature.
04-01-2006, 12:16 PM
#288
Originally Posted by Les Quam
I agree and on some level don't think a HP limitation is such a bad idea. Or at least a MPH limit.
I have often argued on this forum about the logic of 200MPH street cars? Why having cars capable of reaching 200 MPH on public roads is a goal manufacturers strive for. It seems to me that the average supercar buyer can't drive or enjoy these cars at anywhere near their limit without taking them to a track. Once on a road course at a track they now can reach the MPH limit of the supercar but in most cases don't have the experience to cope with any problems that may arise at those speeds.
I would argue that it makes more sense to build cars with a lot of HP if your going to build such cars that are designed to be used at the drag strip on weekends and as street cars during the week. Most drivers can more easily learn to drive their car at the strip then on a road course. I also think drag strips are a lot safer for the average driver than a road course.
In other words maybe Detroit and it right in the late 1960s build cars people could use to drive to work and the grocery store during the week and that could be taken to the local drag strip on Friday nights. How about a new Viper, vette or Mustang with drag pack options instead of 195 MPH options?
I like the new Challenger and Camaro concept and hope that they don't try to make these cars road cars. Yes I know all about the dangers of street drag racing but still think building 200 MPH street cars makes no sense to me. What road am I supposed to use all this capability on? How accessible are road courses for me to enjoy these cars. How often can I get out on a road course when it is not being utilized for other events? Drag strips are open to everyone every weekend during the season.
HOW FAST WILL THE MANUFACTUERS BUILD THESE CARS?? Dodge is working on a 700 HP Viper. Chevy a 600 HP Vette. How much is too much ? How much is enough? Are 220 MPH road cars the next level? For 100K will a driver with no road racing experience be able to walk into a dealership and drive out with a 220MPH Viper or Vette??? It seems the answer is yes? Such cars are not designed to handle drag strip duties so they must be designed for weekend road course activities. Who among us is capable of safely resolving a problem on a road course at over or near 200MPH???
If people want to road race it seems to me Porsche should go back to their roots and build ultra light low HP great handling reliable and safe weekend road cars like the Cayman or boxster or the Lotus Elise as opposed to 605 HP CGTs.
OK you can start the flames now.
I have often argued on this forum about the logic of 200MPH street cars? Why having cars capable of reaching 200 MPH on public roads is a goal manufacturers strive for. It seems to me that the average supercar buyer can't drive or enjoy these cars at anywhere near their limit without taking them to a track. Once on a road course at a track they now can reach the MPH limit of the supercar but in most cases don't have the experience to cope with any problems that may arise at those speeds.
I would argue that it makes more sense to build cars with a lot of HP if your going to build such cars that are designed to be used at the drag strip on weekends and as street cars during the week. Most drivers can more easily learn to drive their car at the strip then on a road course. I also think drag strips are a lot safer for the average driver than a road course.
In other words maybe Detroit and it right in the late 1960s build cars people could use to drive to work and the grocery store during the week and that could be taken to the local drag strip on Friday nights. How about a new Viper, vette or Mustang with drag pack options instead of 195 MPH options?
I like the new Challenger and Camaro concept and hope that they don't try to make these cars road cars. Yes I know all about the dangers of street drag racing but still think building 200 MPH street cars makes no sense to me. What road am I supposed to use all this capability on? How accessible are road courses for me to enjoy these cars. How often can I get out on a road course when it is not being utilized for other events? Drag strips are open to everyone every weekend during the season.
HOW FAST WILL THE MANUFACTUERS BUILD THESE CARS?? Dodge is working on a 700 HP Viper. Chevy a 600 HP Vette. How much is too much ? How much is enough? Are 220 MPH road cars the next level? For 100K will a driver with no road racing experience be able to walk into a dealership and drive out with a 220MPH Viper or Vette??? It seems the answer is yes? Such cars are not designed to handle drag strip duties so they must be designed for weekend road course activities. Who among us is capable of safely resolving a problem on a road course at over or near 200MPH???
If people want to road race it seems to me Porsche should go back to their roots and build ultra light low HP great handling reliable and safe weekend road cars like the Cayman or boxster or the Lotus Elise as opposed to 605 HP CGTs.
OK you can start the flames now.
Ever ridden a really fast sport bike? Out of the showroom, you can be doing 150mph in the blink of an eye -- it's all about personal restraint and responsibility.
04-01-2006, 01:37 PM
#289
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have reached 190 MPH in my stock Viper on a road course back in 1998. That was in the second generation 450HP Viper.
Nick,
I would not have purchased the CGT if it had the Ferrrari like paddle shifter and if I couldn't disable the nanny controls. But I fully realize I am in the clear minority. The CGT is my reward for years of broken ribs and concussions in shifter Kart racing. Porsche even placed the gearshift up on top just like a shifter Kart especially for me.
And I have never disagreed with your position that the CGT should have had more driver aids and that Porsche should have required some form of drivers education before someone could drive a CGT out of the showroom. I have been making that arguement as far back as 1998 when I bought my first 1998 Viper. In my opinion a 450 HP 195 MPH street car is ridiculous and is far beyond the skills of the overwhelming majority of buyers. Now we can buy 510 HP Ford GTs, 510 HP Vipers and and 510 HP ZO6 Vettes all without driver aids. All capable of reaching 200 MPH on a public highway if someone is selfish enough to want to do that. The very same highway my wife drives my kids to school on in her excursion. Do we have an autobahn here in America I am not aware of?
My thoughts are that Ben was killed on a race track where he was responsibly enjoying his CGT doing something he loved. He died not because of a CGT design flaw, but because he didn't have enough experience to cope with an almost impossible situation that arose on the race track due to no fault of his own. Ben had the requisite amount of driver education and skill I have referred too in the paragraph above for the average CGT buyer to safely drive their CGT but not enough seat time on a race track to safely resolve the crisis he was presented with.
Your next assertion is that more driver aids on the CGT perhaps would have saved his life and should have been standard on the CGT? Based on what I know about the crash I don't agree with that position.
I also do not agree with the part of litigation that assets that Porsche is negligent because Ben knowing that his CGT had limited computer driver aids decided to purchase a car without such aids when other cars like the Enzo or 360 with the aids you speak of were available to Ben. He then safely and responsibly took his 200 MPH supercar to a driving environment it was designed to be enjoyed at and had a tragic accident when a car pulled out in front of him from the pits that most likely would have caused most other drivers to crash in the same manner whether or not they were driving a CGT or an Enzo.
I think this litigation as it relates to Porsche and the CGT is trumped up and baseless under these set of facts. I think a better fact pattern to test the issue of whether or not Porsche as well as Ford ,Dodge, Chevy etc or anyone who manufactures a 200 MPH street car should be required to have extensive computer driver aids installed as mandatory would be the guy who walks into his dealership with no previous driving experience and is able to buy a 200 MPH street car with no driver aids then crashes the car on a street in a single car accident.
For example my local Porsche dealership sold a 2002 GT2 to a 19 year old kid whose mother paid for the car as a birthday present. He crashed it and totaled it two days later and fortunately walked away from the crash with minor injuries and didn't hurt anyone else. This same dealership recently sold a CGT to a guy who couldn't drive a manual transmission. I think either of those fact patterns are a better test of your position and objections then Ben's crash. I also strongly feel Porsche should not be singled out in such litigation that other manufacturers are also putting people in the same position.
We should also note for those who have not read the first few pages of this thread that Nick is not the plaintiff's attorney in the Keaton litigation but is instead helping the Keaton family defend the lawsuit filed by the passenger in Ben's car at the time they crashed.
Nick,
I would not have purchased the CGT if it had the Ferrrari like paddle shifter and if I couldn't disable the nanny controls. But I fully realize I am in the clear minority. The CGT is my reward for years of broken ribs and concussions in shifter Kart racing. Porsche even placed the gearshift up on top just like a shifter Kart especially for me.
And I have never disagreed with your position that the CGT should have had more driver aids and that Porsche should have required some form of drivers education before someone could drive a CGT out of the showroom. I have been making that arguement as far back as 1998 when I bought my first 1998 Viper. In my opinion a 450 HP 195 MPH street car is ridiculous and is far beyond the skills of the overwhelming majority of buyers. Now we can buy 510 HP Ford GTs, 510 HP Vipers and and 510 HP ZO6 Vettes all without driver aids. All capable of reaching 200 MPH on a public highway if someone is selfish enough to want to do that. The very same highway my wife drives my kids to school on in her excursion. Do we have an autobahn here in America I am not aware of?
My thoughts are that Ben was killed on a race track where he was responsibly enjoying his CGT doing something he loved. He died not because of a CGT design flaw, but because he didn't have enough experience to cope with an almost impossible situation that arose on the race track due to no fault of his own. Ben had the requisite amount of driver education and skill I have referred too in the paragraph above for the average CGT buyer to safely drive their CGT but not enough seat time on a race track to safely resolve the crisis he was presented with.
Your next assertion is that more driver aids on the CGT perhaps would have saved his life and should have been standard on the CGT? Based on what I know about the crash I don't agree with that position.
I also do not agree with the part of litigation that assets that Porsche is negligent because Ben knowing that his CGT had limited computer driver aids decided to purchase a car without such aids when other cars like the Enzo or 360 with the aids you speak of were available to Ben. He then safely and responsibly took his 200 MPH supercar to a driving environment it was designed to be enjoyed at and had a tragic accident when a car pulled out in front of him from the pits that most likely would have caused most other drivers to crash in the same manner whether or not they were driving a CGT or an Enzo.
I think this litigation as it relates to Porsche and the CGT is trumped up and baseless under these set of facts. I think a better fact pattern to test the issue of whether or not Porsche as well as Ford ,Dodge, Chevy etc or anyone who manufactures a 200 MPH street car should be required to have extensive computer driver aids installed as mandatory would be the guy who walks into his dealership with no previous driving experience and is able to buy a 200 MPH street car with no driver aids then crashes the car on a street in a single car accident.
For example my local Porsche dealership sold a 2002 GT2 to a 19 year old kid whose mother paid for the car as a birthday present. He crashed it and totaled it two days later and fortunately walked away from the crash with minor injuries and didn't hurt anyone else. This same dealership recently sold a CGT to a guy who couldn't drive a manual transmission. I think either of those fact patterns are a better test of your position and objections then Ben's crash. I also strongly feel Porsche should not be singled out in such litigation that other manufacturers are also putting people in the same position.
We should also note for those who have not read the first few pages of this thread that Nick is not the plaintiff's attorney in the Keaton litigation but is instead helping the Keaton family defend the lawsuit filed by the passenger in Ben's car at the time they crashed.
04-01-2006, 01:52 PM
#290
Rennlist Member
Jeff asked why there might not be driver aids on a CGT, since Porsche already owns the sensors, software, etc. I suspect it is the cost of the callibration necessary for a very small series of cars.
However, GM did it for the ZO6.
We ignore the question of set-up on delivered cars. Since the car has adjustability, why not deliver it in a mode more people can handle, and let the track junkies move it to neutral or oversteer at their peril?
We really don't know if Ben's car would have been controllable by an expert in that situation, because it may not be possible to lift and tun at speed, at least in some cars (reference Leno).
The Ford GT may not be quite as loose. Cars that are set up with understeer actually turn better with brake application. That seems to be what most people expect. How can the driver know in advance that his car will behave with oversteer, if he hasn't ever been to that limit before? Sure, it's the driver's fault, but there is a vague odor of "entrapment". AS
However, GM did it for the ZO6.
We ignore the question of set-up on delivered cars. Since the car has adjustability, why not deliver it in a mode more people can handle, and let the track junkies move it to neutral or oversteer at their peril?
We really don't know if Ben's car would have been controllable by an expert in that situation, because it may not be possible to lift and tun at speed, at least in some cars (reference Leno).
The Ford GT may not be quite as loose. Cars that are set up with understeer actually turn better with brake application. That seems to be what most people expect. How can the driver know in advance that his car will behave with oversteer, if he hasn't ever been to that limit before? Sure, it's the driver's fault, but there is a vague odor of "entrapment". AS
04-01-2006, 02:02 PM
#291
Prefer all the assistance I can get!
Originally Posted by Nick
Les, would either you, Ray, Michael or the other owners of the CGT NOT purchased the car if it was equipped with PSM or any other appropriate electronic stability control system?.
I suspect it would not have made any difference and more than likely most preferred to have the additional safety feature.
I suspect it would not have made any difference and more than likely most preferred to have the additional safety feature.
Looking back years ago, it seems like the times were easier when I bought my new 1968 Road Runner Hemi and was just concerned if it had positraction and the rear end gear ratios were just right for an occasional short drag race on the street!
04-01-2006, 02:42 PM
#292
Originally Posted by Les Quam
I have reached 190 MPH in my stock Viper on a road course back in 1998. That was in the second generation 450HP Viper.
.
.
I don't even think stock 2nd-Gen Vipers can go 190mph. That car must have had one hell of an optomistic speedometer, to the tune of about 30mph.
Last edited by pcar964; 04-01-2006 at 02:59 PM.
04-01-2006, 04:51 PM
#293
Rennlist Member
Les, I am not litigating the lawsuit on this forum. I am convinced as you have indicated that first, there is too much hp in street cars for the average buyer and second, car manufaturers should include all safety devices at their disposal on these car. This should apply to any manufacturer who places a product in the stream of commerce.
If you want to call safety devices nanny items so be it. But tell me and I have asked this question before why object to safety features in a car? Are you concerned that your times at a track would be slower by a few seconds? Or is it a macho thing that when I drive my car its do or die?
If Shumacker, Alphonso and the rest of the professional drivers were put into Miata's or Boxsters would that diminish their driving skills or make it any less entertaining watching them race? Is speed what it is really about?
If you want to call safety devices nanny items so be it. But tell me and I have asked this question before why object to safety features in a car? Are you concerned that your times at a track would be slower by a few seconds? Or is it a macho thing that when I drive my car its do or die?
If Shumacker, Alphonso and the rest of the professional drivers were put into Miata's or Boxsters would that diminish their driving skills or make it any less entertaining watching them race? Is speed what it is really about?
04-01-2006, 04:57 PM
#294
Originally Posted by Nick
Les, I am not litigating the lawsuit on this forum. I am convinced as you have indicated that first, there is too much hp in street cars for the average buyer and second, car manufaturers should include all safety devices at their disposal on these car. This should apply to any manufacturer who places a product in the stream of commerce.
If you want to call safety devices nanny items so be it. But tell me and I have asked this question before why object to safety features in a car? Are you concerned that your times at a track would be slower by a few seconds? Or is it a macho thing that when I drive my car its do or die?
If Shumacker, Alphonso and the rest of the professional drivers were put into Miata's or Boxsters would that diminish their driving skills or make it any less entertaining watching them race? Is speed what it is really about?
If you want to call safety devices nanny items so be it. But tell me and I have asked this question before why object to safety features in a car? Are you concerned that your times at a track would be slower by a few seconds? Or is it a macho thing that when I drive my car its do or die?
If Shumacker, Alphonso and the rest of the professional drivers were put into Miata's or Boxsters would that diminish their driving skills or make it any less entertaining watching them race? Is speed what it is really about?
Again, your mindset of "government knows best" is appalling and disgusting to freedom loving Americans like myself. Take your fascism elsewhere.
04-01-2006, 05:39 PM
#295
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I never accused you of litigating the case on this or any other forum. My last statement regarding your involvement was to enlighten those who start reading this thread on page 22 instead of page one and may get the mistaken impression you are the plaintiff's attorney on this litigation we are discussing.
Pcar,
Got my stock 98 Viper to 190 or above at three places. 1.willow springs 2. LVMSW on the infield road course where we were able to go out on the banking for a short time. And 3 on the deserted highway near area 51. I am pretty sure the speedo was correct because I had been told the passenger window would get sucked out at over 185 MPH on the highway and sure enough it did. Stock second generation 450 HP Vipers have been timed by a radar gun up to 194 MPH.
Alex,
So Ben was entrapped into buying a CGT as opposed to a Ford GT, F360 or Enzo? Porsche entrapped him into doing something he would not have ordinarly have been predisposed to do when he purchased the CGT and put a few thousand miles or more on the car before taking it out onto a track and crashing it?????
BTW, now that Ford has confirmed that it's press fleet of Ford GTs were supertuned with pulleys and different PROM programming then the production versions I am waiting to hear you admit you were wrong on that Saleen built turdbox? LOL LOL
I never accused you of litigating the case on this or any other forum. My last statement regarding your involvement was to enlighten those who start reading this thread on page 22 instead of page one and may get the mistaken impression you are the plaintiff's attorney on this litigation we are discussing.
Pcar,
Got my stock 98 Viper to 190 or above at three places. 1.willow springs 2. LVMSW on the infield road course where we were able to go out on the banking for a short time. And 3 on the deserted highway near area 51. I am pretty sure the speedo was correct because I had been told the passenger window would get sucked out at over 185 MPH on the highway and sure enough it did. Stock second generation 450 HP Vipers have been timed by a radar gun up to 194 MPH.
Alex,
So Ben was entrapped into buying a CGT as opposed to a Ford GT, F360 or Enzo? Porsche entrapped him into doing something he would not have ordinarly have been predisposed to do when he purchased the CGT and put a few thousand miles or more on the car before taking it out onto a track and crashing it?????
BTW, now that Ford has confirmed that it's press fleet of Ford GTs were supertuned with pulleys and different PROM programming then the production versions I am waiting to hear you admit you were wrong on that Saleen built turdbox? LOL LOL
04-01-2006, 07:01 PM
#296
Rennlist Member
Les,
I knew my word choice was questionable. I'm struggling to make my thought clear. If just about every car you can buy tends naturally to understeer, it's hard to anticipate that this one does not. The sum total of your experiences doesn't give you the knowledge you need.
I don't think 3000 miles of street driving prepares you for this either. Lots of practice on a track does.
When a car has very high limits, the only way to get close to the edge is on the track. If there is no warning, and no safety net, your first maistake can be your last mistake. It isn't clear that most buyers know that.
That isn't true for you or Mike, but you've spent lots of time going sideways. If you are used to an understeering sports car like a 996, you can't have the reflex you need.
We all admire the CGT as a barely disguised sports racer. Most buyers have no clue as to what that means.
Anyway, our opinions are clear. The discussion is enlightening. I still think the average owner should dial as much oversteer out as the adjustments allow. AS
I knew my word choice was questionable. I'm struggling to make my thought clear. If just about every car you can buy tends naturally to understeer, it's hard to anticipate that this one does not. The sum total of your experiences doesn't give you the knowledge you need.
I don't think 3000 miles of street driving prepares you for this either. Lots of practice on a track does.
When a car has very high limits, the only way to get close to the edge is on the track. If there is no warning, and no safety net, your first maistake can be your last mistake. It isn't clear that most buyers know that.
That isn't true for you or Mike, but you've spent lots of time going sideways. If you are used to an understeering sports car like a 996, you can't have the reflex you need.
We all admire the CGT as a barely disguised sports racer. Most buyers have no clue as to what that means.
Anyway, our opinions are clear. The discussion is enlightening. I still think the average owner should dial as much oversteer out as the adjustments allow. AS
04-01-2006, 08:49 PM
#297
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by pcar964
Which road course did you get your stock Viper up to 190mph? I don't know of many road course straightaways that would allow that car to reach that speed.
I don't even think stock 2nd-Gen Vipers can go 190mph. That car must have had one hell of an optomistic speedometer, to the tune of about 30mph.
I don't even think stock 2nd-Gen Vipers can go 190mph. That car must have had one hell of an optomistic speedometer, to the tune of about 30mph.
Regarding your facist statement, you clearly have a problem with authority. Unfortunately FOR YOU, your living in a society that cares about others and their safety. You can huff and puff all you like, but in the end you either change or blow your brains out. Then again, you may kill yourself on some highway.
04-01-2006, 11:05 PM
#298
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The odometer was reading 190 MPH but there is always some variance from actual speed but not 30 MPH. Plus like I said the second generation Viper has been radar gun clocked at 194 MPH.
Alex,
I know you didn't mean entrapment in the literal sense I was just having some fun with you. From my experience a car will either oversteer or understeer and that's about all I ever spend thinking about it. When racing I never thought about it like that I always just digested the fact the car is pushing or turning in to easily. Anything else was too complicated for me, racing is like golf for me if you start thinking too much you can't function. At least I can't.
I always set my cars up as neutral as possible because track conditions change from hour to hour and in one session you have too much grip the next not enough and you haven't even touched the car? The only thing that changed was the track. That's the way I find the CGT pretty neutral but driver inputs change when conditions change so I haven't noticed the handling characterictics you have described. This philosophy is common from drivers who are a product of the Barber Dodge race series and ladder system.
In Barber Dodge you are not allowed to change your assigned cars set up. All the cars are tested to run within about a half second of each other every race weekend. However each car gets to that specific lap time differently. Some have extra HP but lousy handling, some have great brakes and OK HP and some just handle better than others. Therefore you as the driver must adjust your driving techinque from car to car and may actually drive a half dozen different cars over the course of a Barber Dodge race weekend including practice and qualifying. Each car feels completely different than the previous one. So as a result your forced to constantly adapt to a changing car and track conditions. The adaptation is to the way you drive the car. Therefore most Barber Dodge products drive by the seat of their pants and feel very comfortable in ill handling mid engine cars.
I don't really pay attention or think about whether a car has understeer or oversteer my feeling in the seat of my pants tells me what inputs the car needs. I know my GT2 and CGT feel completely different but can't tell you whether either car pushes more than the other I just know the GT2 requires more corrections and the CGT needs softer quicker and much more precise inputs. The CGT revs up quicker than any other car I have ever driven and as a result everything happens blindingly quick. The only other vehicle I have ever driven like a CGT is a 125 CC shifter kart. IMHO the speed at which the CGT reaches it's maximum power band is what cause most people problems not an inherent built in understeer.
I have also driven both a street 360 and a challenge 360 on the track at laguna Seca and both were much more difficult to drive in terms of keeping the tail where it belongs then the CGT or even the GT2. Ask any 360 challenge driver about how difficult the early 360s were when new. Yikes!
Also raced both stock and comp Vipers and they are a death trap compared to a CGT. I have driven a few previous Z06 vettes on race tracks and thought they were tremendous handling cars. Really neutral and at around 405 HP were perfect street/weekend track cars. Just the perfect blend of HP and handling IMHO.
Alex,
I know you didn't mean entrapment in the literal sense I was just having some fun with you. From my experience a car will either oversteer or understeer and that's about all I ever spend thinking about it. When racing I never thought about it like that I always just digested the fact the car is pushing or turning in to easily. Anything else was too complicated for me, racing is like golf for me if you start thinking too much you can't function. At least I can't.
I always set my cars up as neutral as possible because track conditions change from hour to hour and in one session you have too much grip the next not enough and you haven't even touched the car? The only thing that changed was the track. That's the way I find the CGT pretty neutral but driver inputs change when conditions change so I haven't noticed the handling characterictics you have described. This philosophy is common from drivers who are a product of the Barber Dodge race series and ladder system.
In Barber Dodge you are not allowed to change your assigned cars set up. All the cars are tested to run within about a half second of each other every race weekend. However each car gets to that specific lap time differently. Some have extra HP but lousy handling, some have great brakes and OK HP and some just handle better than others. Therefore you as the driver must adjust your driving techinque from car to car and may actually drive a half dozen different cars over the course of a Barber Dodge race weekend including practice and qualifying. Each car feels completely different than the previous one. So as a result your forced to constantly adapt to a changing car and track conditions. The adaptation is to the way you drive the car. Therefore most Barber Dodge products drive by the seat of their pants and feel very comfortable in ill handling mid engine cars.
I don't really pay attention or think about whether a car has understeer or oversteer my feeling in the seat of my pants tells me what inputs the car needs. I know my GT2 and CGT feel completely different but can't tell you whether either car pushes more than the other I just know the GT2 requires more corrections and the CGT needs softer quicker and much more precise inputs. The CGT revs up quicker than any other car I have ever driven and as a result everything happens blindingly quick. The only other vehicle I have ever driven like a CGT is a 125 CC shifter kart. IMHO the speed at which the CGT reaches it's maximum power band is what cause most people problems not an inherent built in understeer.
I have also driven both a street 360 and a challenge 360 on the track at laguna Seca and both were much more difficult to drive in terms of keeping the tail where it belongs then the CGT or even the GT2. Ask any 360 challenge driver about how difficult the early 360s were when new. Yikes!
Also raced both stock and comp Vipers and they are a death trap compared to a CGT. I have driven a few previous Z06 vettes on race tracks and thought they were tremendous handling cars. Really neutral and at around 405 HP were perfect street/weekend track cars. Just the perfect blend of HP and handling IMHO.
04-01-2006, 11:05 PM
#299
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So once PSM (ESP etc) becomes required by law, how soon before it is illegal to disable it? It seems odd that Porsche does not offer PSM as an option on the upcoming 997 GT3, since it is seen as a must have option for some. I would think that the dynamics / bugs have been worked out on the 997.
04-02-2006, 12:54 AM
#300
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Nick
Pcar or whatever your name is. I know Les and I would not say this about most people I know, but if Les stated he drove 190mph take it to the bank.
Bottomline, each individual is responsible for their own actions on the track. Driving the car beyond the limits of the driver is the responsibility/fault of the driver. Driving the vehicle beyond the limits of the car is the driver's responsibility.
It's almost like breaking your ankle while playing basketball and suing Nike for stating that air jordans are the best performing athletic shoe around: just look at Mike.
Rediculous.
Thats 101.