Paul walker of fast and furious fame dead.
Discussion
911p said:
trickywoo said:
Lots of wild speculation on the tyres.
Old tyres aren't always death traps http://www.michelin.co.uk/road-to-performance#road...
Michelin recommend changing at 10 years.
When my dad got his 996 it had 8 year old MPS2s (same as what the CGT comes with) on the front, and it was dangerous to be honest. ABS would kick in very quickly - a similar feeling to braking on snow or ice - no real deceleration or tyre noise, but loads of ABS. They looked OK but were just unbelievably hard.Old tyres aren't always death traps http://www.michelin.co.uk/road-to-performance#road...
Michelin recommend changing at 10 years.
If you went out for a fast run with tyres like that you'd be in serious trouble IMO.
Evidently not what many here want to hear though.
y2blade said:
911p said:
trickywoo said:
Lots of wild speculation on the tyres.
Old tyres aren't always death traps http://www.michelin.co.uk/road-to-performance#road...
Michelin recommend changing at 10 years.
When my dad got his 996 it had 8 year old MPS2s (same as what the CGT comes with) on the front, and it was dangerous to be honest. ABS would kick in very quickly - a similar feeling to braking on snow or ice - no real deceleration or tyre noise, but loads of ABS. They looked OK but were just unbelievably hard.Old tyres aren't always death traps http://www.michelin.co.uk/road-to-performance#road...
Michelin recommend changing at 10 years.
If you went out for a fast run with tyres like that you'd be in serious trouble IMO.
Evidently not what many here want to hear though.
As for the earlier comment that "tyres vulcanise" just what was that suppose to mean? Of course they vulcanise, we'd be in the s
t if they didn't. Once again, the blind leading the blind.
A bit apples and oranges really, but the difference between the old tyres (IIRC a well known brand) on a low mileage 205 (so potentially 15+ years old) and the cheapest new tyres my old man could get (again IIRC an Polish brand/origin) was huge - the new tyres gripped better (dry and wet), rode better and made the steering feel like it was power assisted again in comparison.
REALIST123 said:
I hear it but I don't believe it. After spending 25 years plus on the tyre industry I know that age is just one of the factors in how tyres deteriorate. There are lots of others. It could be quite possible to have 10 year old tyres that were safe, just as 2 year old ones could be unsafe.
As for the earlier comment that "tyres vulcanise" just what was that suppose to mean? Of course they vulcanise, we'd be in the st if they didn't.
Once again, the blind leading the blind.
I always thought that it was UV that killed tyresAs for the earlier comment that "tyres vulcanise" just what was that suppose to mean? Of course they vulcanise, we'd be in the s
t if they didn't. Once again, the blind leading the blind.
I have no specific expertise on this issue, but I did have a lesson.
I have a little-used SL500 that I bought new in 2003 (total mileage 18,000). Original tires showed very little tread loss as the car was not driven at all hard. I was driving on a road in Arizona in 2012 at 120Km/h when one of the tires had a catastrophic failure. No danger or anything and I came to a halt in a straight line, even the wheel was fine. I am usually cautious about tires but had neglected to do the SL. Now, I am much more careful.
I have a little-used SL500 that I bought new in 2003 (total mileage 18,000). Original tires showed very little tread loss as the car was not driven at all hard. I was driving on a road in Arizona in 2012 at 120Km/h when one of the tires had a catastrophic failure. No danger or anything and I came to a halt in a straight line, even the wheel was fine. I am usually cautious about tires but had neglected to do the SL. Now, I am much more careful.
y2blade said:
Post-crash investigators said the car had an exhaust system modified for greater speed and three of its tyres were nine years old when they should have been changed after four, which meant "the drivability and handling characteristics ... may have been compromised".
How do you make tyres last nine years?qube_TA said:
What a sad world we live in at times. st happens, has happened, will happen. Not without precedent in the USA. There was a claim arising out of a fatality at a trackday in 2006.
"Last summer, "Legal Files" reported about a lawsuit resulting from the fatal crash of a Porsche Carrera GT at a club track day at the California Speedway (June 2006, p. 30). The lawsuit was recently settled for a reported total of approximately $4.5 million. The contributions to the settlement were about 49% from the estate of the driver, 41% from the track owners and the event organizers, 8% from Porsche, and 2% from the driver of the Ferrari that was claimed to have triggered the crash."
"The sole claim against Porsche was that the CGT was defective because it was designed without electronic stability control, which Porsche calls PSM. McClellan deposed two German engineers on the subject, and their answers were inconsistent. One testified that Porsche did not 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. The other engineer testified that PSM was not offered because the customers didn’t want it.
McClellan suspects it was a marketing decision, as the CGT was marketed as a "race car for the streets," and race cars don’t have electronic stability control. He notes that during its development, the CGT had exhibited a tendency to oversteer during high lateral acceleration. Porsche made some adjustments, but did not fully correct the problem, which explained why the mechanic who drove Keaton’s car reported “handling problems.” PSM would have corrected the “tail happy” oversteer response to Keaton’s steering input to avoid the Ferrari."
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-d...
"Last summer, "Legal Files" reported about a lawsuit resulting from the fatal crash of a Porsche Carrera GT at a club track day at the California Speedway (June 2006, p. 30). The lawsuit was recently settled for a reported total of approximately $4.5 million. The contributions to the settlement were about 49% from the estate of the driver, 41% from the track owners and the event organizers, 8% from Porsche, and 2% from the driver of the Ferrari that was claimed to have triggered the crash."
"The sole claim against Porsche was that the CGT was defective because it was designed without electronic stability control, which Porsche calls PSM. McClellan deposed two German engineers on the subject, and their answers were inconsistent. One testified that Porsche did not 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. The other engineer testified that PSM was not offered because the customers didn’t want it.
McClellan suspects it was a marketing decision, as the CGT was marketed as a "race car for the streets," and race cars don’t have electronic stability control. He notes that during its development, the CGT had exhibited a tendency to oversteer during high lateral acceleration. Porsche made some adjustments, but did not fully correct the problem, which explained why the mechanic who drove Keaton’s car reported “handling problems.” PSM would have corrected the “tail happy” oversteer response to Keaton’s steering input to avoid the Ferrari."
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-d...
garyhun said:
qube_TA said:
What a sad world we live in at times. st happens, has happened, will happen. mini1380cc said:
garyhun said:
qube_TA said:
What a sad world we live in at times. st happens, has happened, will happen. qube_TA said:
garyhun said:
Was that track day crash not a result of an unsafe release from the pit lane though? Very different situation, no?
Also the wall he hit was not supposed to be there . It had been moved for an event previously and they hadn't moved it back .very unfortunate otherwise he would have just suffered a damaged Cgt .Porsche paid out what they calculated defending the claim would have cost .
wtdoom said:
Porsche paid out what they calculated defending the claim would have cost .
This doesn't make any sense - as you might as well defend it if that is your opinion of the merits and likely quantum / costs.I think I know what you mean? No admission of liability, reasonable sum offered in the expectation that the sum awarded at trial could be much higher - thereby avoiding massive legal fees incurred after a contested trial. Publicity minimised if settlement reached away from a public courtroom.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff