'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales
Discussion
The judgment seems pretty unimpeachable. There is no sense that Mr Hales had a case which might have been better presented, more that he didn't have a case in the first place. I rather assume he didn't call expert evidence (eg a report of an inspection of the gearbox or an assessment of the reasonable cost of repair) because it would not have assisted him. My sense of the case is that he wasn't in a position to settle and so had to go through with the whole awful business. I feel very sorry for Mr Hales and I repeat what I wrote earlier: I hope it works out for both of them.
rubystone said:
Where's the promised Chris Harris blog, by the way? Does anyone have a link to it?
Maybe it'll be typed in reverse. Maybe not.I tend to agree with those who say there are no winners from this. It's a sad case with a sad (though I feel correct) result.
Is it just my sense of black humour, that wonders whether Hales' choice of solicitor was possibly both poor and ultimately fortunate.
simonrockman said:
While arguing the rights and wrongs of this we should look to how it affects us as readers of PH/Octane or whatever.
There isn't the money in publishing - particularly not paper publishing - to pay the real costs of running the kinds of cars we want to read about. Two magazines clubbed together to pay the expenses for running this article.
For new cars and the occasional heritage car there are manufacturers fleets, but if a manufacturer doesn't have a demonstrator we'll not get to read about it save for an owners generosity.
I note that in this month's EVO they say that a previous attempt to review the One-77 was scuppered because they couldn't afford the insurance. I assume that for the review they did the owner paid the premium.
Of course in hindsight you think "there should have been a proper contract", but when you've sixty or eighty editorial pages to produce in a month, it's hard enough to get two cars in the same place on the same day, when the track is available with all the right people, and hope the weather is good, to fit in with a deadline without arseing about with contracts. And that only fills four or six pages.
The UK press is very special in that it is properly critical, if it becomes entirely reliant on the goodwill of those with vested interests, rather than having that balanced by petrolhead owners we'll suffer as readers.
Like everyone on this forum I would not want to see reviews and tests curtailed or jeopardised by this but a bit of "arseing about" might have saved MH's homeThere isn't the money in publishing - particularly not paper publishing - to pay the real costs of running the kinds of cars we want to read about. Two magazines clubbed together to pay the expenses for running this article.
For new cars and the occasional heritage car there are manufacturers fleets, but if a manufacturer doesn't have a demonstrator we'll not get to read about it save for an owners generosity.
I note that in this month's EVO they say that a previous attempt to review the One-77 was scuppered because they couldn't afford the insurance. I assume that for the review they did the owner paid the premium.
Of course in hindsight you think "there should have been a proper contract", but when you've sixty or eighty editorial pages to produce in a month, it's hard enough to get two cars in the same place on the same day, when the track is available with all the right people, and hope the weather is good, to fit in with a deadline without arseing about with contracts. And that only fills four or six pages.
The UK press is very special in that it is properly critical, if it becomes entirely reliant on the goodwill of those with vested interests, rather than having that balanced by petrolhead owners we'll suffer as readers.
GavinPearson said:
woof said:
I got done a few years ago when Caterham gave me their Factory Superlight to race. Engine let go on the then Revett Straight on an up change, a piston made an escape for freedom, during qualifying after only driving it for 3 laps!
Anyway ended up having to do a deal on the engine because Ministers said I'd over revved on a down change. Of course I felt that was BS since I've driven Superlights for years and never with an issue.
Problem is unless the engine has just had a refresh or re build, you'll never know the real condition of it.
Perhaps you are not aware, but properly engineered clutches are designed to have their facings disintegrate (known as burst speed) when overrevved e.g. selecting 2nd instead of 4th in order to protect the engine. And properly engineered engine management systems have rev limiters that stop an overspeed when the engine is declutched.Anyway ended up having to do a deal on the engine because Ministers said I'd over revved on a down change. Of course I felt that was BS since I've driven Superlights for years and never with an issue.
Problem is unless the engine has just had a refresh or re build, you'll never know the real condition of it.
The way all this is going is that magazines are going to limit the amount of testing they do and race rentals are going to be a thing of the past.
I also suspect that historic racing entries are going to diminish, because no driver in their right mind is going to risk their worldly posessions when being sued for damaging somebody's vehicle.
To me, the rules of track use are simple. The vehicle owner should expect their vehicle to be reduced to scrap every time it goes out and it is incumbent on them to mitigate that risk, if it looks like the driver who was previously considered a safe bet is having a bad day then call him in and park the car. That goes whether it's an inexpensive kart or a hugely expensive racing car.
If you rent your race car out - then part of the agreement is going to involve damage and cost of repairs.
I will be renting out my car at various points of the season and I'll know what condition the engine will be in before it goes out but i would stress in the rental agreement that the engine cannot go over X revs.
Lending the car to someone, is a different matter. I think then you need to have sometype of understanding about who's paying what if the worse happens.
plenty said:
...
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
I try to avoid the knee-jerk negativism that tends to characterise popular opinion of the legal system and legal profession, but given that many of the people on this thread who are saying that MH deserves this outcome appear to be lawyers or with some experience to the legal system, I can't help but conclude that achieving fairness and justice is less important than playing the game in a "savvy" way. Or, to quote "Lurking Lawyer": Lawyers are often told that we're too interested in academic intepretations and issues, and that we should offer more practical advice geared towards real world solutions.
Would you regard being jailed for insurance fraud (something that might possibly have happened if the note was in fact untrue) as a form of being bitten? Is scamming an insurer OK? Elsewhere on PH, insurance scams are greatly deplored, not least as they raise premiums. In the event, the Judge found that the statement made to the insurer was true, but unfortunate consequences might have ensued it it had not been. As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
I try to avoid the knee-jerk negativism that tends to characterise popular opinion of the legal system and legal profession, but given that many of the people on this thread who are saying that MH deserves this outcome appear to be lawyers or with some experience to the legal system, I can't help but conclude that achieving fairness and justice is less important than playing the game in a "savvy" way. Or, to quote "Lurking Lawyer": Lawyers are often told that we're too interested in academic intepretations and issues, and that we should offer more practical advice geared towards real world solutions.
I haven't seen any lawyer here saying that fairness and justice don't matter. On the contrary, we are saying that not being straight with an insurer, or not being straight with a Judge, are bad things. If the judgment appeared unfair or unjust, I'd be concerned, but, on the face of it, it doesn't appear to be either of those things.
Stelvio1 said:
Breadvan72 said:
I've commented above on the profiles of the barristers who argued the case at trial. Mr Piper's solicitors were Wilmots, a firm with specialist experience in relation to classic cars (they acted in the Brewer v Mann case about an old Bentley that was much discussed on PH last year). Mr Hales used a small firm that advertises insolvency law as its main strength. That doesn't seem an obvious choice of horse for this course.
So justice, you suggest, is proportional to the brief you hire??There was no obvious disparity between the profiles of the two barristers. We don't know at what stage counsel first became involved on Mr Hales' side, or what advice he was give by the solicitors or by counsel.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 21st January 21:35
simonrockman said:
While arguing the rights and wrongs of this we should look to how it affects us as readers of PH/Octane or whatever.
There isn't the money in publishing - particularly not paper publishing - to pay the real costs of running the kinds of cars we want to read about. Two magazines clubbed together to pay the expenses for running this article.
For new cars and the occasional heritage car there are manufacturers fleets, but if a manufacturer doesn't have a demonstrator we'll not get to read about it save for an owners generosity.
I note that in this month's EVO they say that a previous attempt to review the One-77 was scuppered because they couldn't afford the insurance. I assume that for the review they did the owner paid the premium.
Of course in hindsight you think "there should have been a proper contract", but when you've sixty or eighty editorial pages to produce in a month, it's hard enough to get two cars in the same place on the same day, when the track is available with all the right people, and hope the weather is good, to fit in with a deadline without arseing about with contracts. And that only fills four or six pages.
The UK press is very special in that it is properly critical, if it becomes entirely reliant on the goodwill of those with vested interests, rather than having that balanced by petrolhead owners we'll suffer as readers.
There's no money in publishing because the punters--us--don't want quality and certainly don't want to pay for it. As a result the advertisers don't want to buy space in it. It's all cheap colour photography and 1,000 badly but quickly written words. Nobody can read anymore: still fewer can write. Evo and Octane are the best of a bad bunch but they're total sThere isn't the money in publishing - particularly not paper publishing - to pay the real costs of running the kinds of cars we want to read about. Two magazines clubbed together to pay the expenses for running this article.
For new cars and the occasional heritage car there are manufacturers fleets, but if a manufacturer doesn't have a demonstrator we'll not get to read about it save for an owners generosity.
I note that in this month's EVO they say that a previous attempt to review the One-77 was scuppered because they couldn't afford the insurance. I assume that for the review they did the owner paid the premium.
Of course in hindsight you think "there should have been a proper contract", but when you've sixty or eighty editorial pages to produce in a month, it's hard enough to get two cars in the same place on the same day, when the track is available with all the right people, and hope the weather is good, to fit in with a deadline without arseing about with contracts. And that only fills four or six pages.
The UK press is very special in that it is properly critical, if it becomes entirely reliant on the goodwill of those with vested interests, rather than having that balanced by petrolhead owners we'll suffer as readers.
t compared to Car in the Mel Nichols/Steve Cropley/Gavin Green period. And I'm afraid in all walks of life, very few people--even huge business on mega deals--think about the terms of their dealings. In my experience, the parties often think about the upside but almost never think about what might go wrong and how the chips should fall. Fortunately it doesn't go wrong very often.
Fatrat said:
Like everyone on this forum I would not want to see reviews and tests curtailed or jeopardised by this but a bit of "arseing about" might have saved MH's home
You can be sure that arseing about with contracts will be the order of the day from now on. If an acceptable contract template could be arrived at, one that every publishing house could use (not the writer - it really should be the publishing house standing behind this) and one that owners would be happy with, there's no reason to suppose that there'd be any effect other than a longer lead-in time for the editor to work around, while the suits shuffle their papers back and forth a bit.The Crack Fox said:
"You bend it, you mend it" - seems perfectly fair to me, it's a famously expensive racing car, if Hales had any concerns about not being able to afford it going 'pop' then perhaps he shouldn't have driven it.
This exactly, if I'm ever offered keys this is what I consider!One Shot said:
Hear Hear!
We've heard a lot about how he's scrupulously honest. However, either he lied to the insurers or he lied to the high court. You can't have it both ways. plenty said:
Those whose opinions have turned against MH - where's the proportionality?
At the very worst the guy was guilty of missing a gear change (and even that's debatable, given the extensive evidence that exists around the fragility of the 917 gearbox as documented on this thread).
Numerous people have stepped forward to vouch for his honesty and good character. MH has already admitted he was naive - perhaps he believed, as some naively do, that courts would take into consideration what to him was self-evident (i.e fairness and proportional outcomes) rather than basing decisions on how someone carries himself in the courtroom.
I find very easy to believe that a desperate man, left high and dry by the insurers, already facing financial ruin under pressure from DP, and inexperienced in the ways of jurisprudence, would make an ill-advised decision to go to court - and furthermore that when the full realisation dawned of what a bad decision this was, that he feel utterly cornered and hence come across as "creative, inconsistent, self-motivated".
Contrast this with DP who by comparison had little to lose and little pressure bearing down on him.
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
At the very worst the guy was guilty of missing a gear change (and even that's debatable, given the extensive evidence that exists around the fragility of the 917 gearbox as documented on this thread).
Numerous people have stepped forward to vouch for his honesty and good character. MH has already admitted he was naive - perhaps he believed, as some naively do, that courts would take into consideration what to him was self-evident (i.e fairness and proportional outcomes) rather than basing decisions on how someone carries himself in the courtroom.
I find very easy to believe that a desperate man, left high and dry by the insurers, already facing financial ruin under pressure from DP, and inexperienced in the ways of jurisprudence, would make an ill-advised decision to go to court - and furthermore that when the full realisation dawned of what a bad decision this was, that he feel utterly cornered and hence come across as "creative, inconsistent, self-motivated".
Contrast this with DP who by comparison had little to lose and little pressure bearing down on him.
As for MH admitting in writing that he missed a gear change - if I were facing a bill for tens of thousands of pounds and thought that this might help get the insurers to pay, I'd probably do the same thing. Little knowing that this would come back to bite me in the end.
The gearbox apparently worked before he drove it. It apparently worked afterwards. All we have to suggest that it was a mechanical failure is his word. His word which flatly contradicts something he said earlier in writing. I fail to see how having a better manner in court would have helped him.
i may be having a slow day but how was the car run shortly after this incident [reference to car being fine on its next outing]. or did they just swap out the engine?
in a any case it is pretty damning of MH in the judges summation. i wonder if he will be back to pass further comment in light of this coming out?
O/T but how many of those reports does a judge have to do per week? just take ages!
in a any case it is pretty damning of MH in the judges summation. i wonder if he will be back to pass further comment in light of this coming out?
O/T but how many of those reports does a judge have to do per week? just take ages!
If you read the judgement, it seems to me that the only way you can think MH is being truthful now is if you accept he was being untruthful in the original insurance claim. A bit of a credibility catch 22, and certainly justifies the judge's comments. MH was prepared to make up a story for financial gain, that much is clear.
While it's unfortunate if this affects magazines/writers future testing plans, the flip side would be if owners thought that they could not rely on recompense if their cars were damaged during the test. Supply would be affected, just as this verdict might affect demand.
Speaking from personal experience, you rarely, if ever, expect to be covered for engine/gearbox damage, and if you want to take that risk, then it's caveat emptor. Would it be fair if DP was handed back a pile of bits and a big bill, by someone who told the insurance company, that it was his fault?
Many years ago, I was racing abroad, struggling for sponsorship, and pretty hard up. I was asked to do some instruction in some guys old 911, which paid $1,000 and should have helped pay the bills. Unfortunately I ended up losing the back end and damaged the car. It turned out there was no insurance in place, and the track day organiser (well respected...no names!) basically left me in the lurch to deal direct with owner. I took it on the chin, and literally lived on plain macaroni for weeks to be able to afford to pay off the damage. (I can still taste it!). In the end, he waived the last bill as he knew I'd done what I could.
The "handshake" thing works both ways, and MH (and maybe Octane, I don't know the facts of that) should have stepped up to the plate earlier, in which case I'm sure they could have reached a better conclusion
While it's unfortunate if this affects magazines/writers future testing plans, the flip side would be if owners thought that they could not rely on recompense if their cars were damaged during the test. Supply would be affected, just as this verdict might affect demand.
Speaking from personal experience, you rarely, if ever, expect to be covered for engine/gearbox damage, and if you want to take that risk, then it's caveat emptor. Would it be fair if DP was handed back a pile of bits and a big bill, by someone who told the insurance company, that it was his fault?
Many years ago, I was racing abroad, struggling for sponsorship, and pretty hard up. I was asked to do some instruction in some guys old 911, which paid $1,000 and should have helped pay the bills. Unfortunately I ended up losing the back end and damaged the car. It turned out there was no insurance in place, and the track day organiser (well respected...no names!) basically left me in the lurch to deal direct with owner. I took it on the chin, and literally lived on plain macaroni for weeks to be able to afford to pay off the damage. (I can still taste it!). In the end, he waived the last bill as he knew I'd done what I could.
The "handshake" thing works both ways, and MH (and maybe Octane, I don't know the facts of that) should have stepped up to the plate earlier, in which case I'm sure they could have reached a better conclusion
Edited by footsoldier on Monday 21st January 21:54
Last year at work I had many situations where I was asked to work on a cusomer's live production system. I'm not insured to work on it so I refused and had the customer sign a legal waiver. A cable-kicking waiver, if you will. This releases me of all responsibility should anything untoward happen during my engagement.
Does this never happen in motor journalism and on a related note does anyone know what happened when Topgear wrecked that classic Jag a few years ago?
Does this never happen in motor journalism and on a related note does anyone know what happened when Topgear wrecked that classic Jag a few years ago?
This thread seems to me to have reached the end of its useful life. I'm saddened by the way this thread has gone over the last couple of pages. I asked earlier for people to desist from making defamatory comments about either individual in this case, and that hasn't happened.
Whilst there have been some very sage observations from people in the legal, publishing and racecar engineering professions which have added much to the debate, some of the armchair "experts" who've inferred things publicly about Mark Hales are quite wrong and not armed with all the information with which to comment.
It really isn't for me to make comments about whether the judgement was correct or not because I wasn't in court on the day and, frankly, it matters not one bit what me or any of us think about the decision.
However what I can say is this; Mark Hales is, in the experience of many of my colleagues in this business and gained over many years, a very honest and decent bloke, someone with exceptional mechanical sympathy and a great deal of experience driving cars of this kind. Someone more qualified than almost anyone I can think of to drive the cars he does and to convey to us magazine readers what it is like to experience them. That he now faces an extremely uncertain financial future due to a single incident in an otherwise remarkable career is a huge shame, no matter what one might think of the circumstances which have led to him being in this position.
There have been many who've expressed a desire to try to help Mark. There are plans afoot to organise something more formally but, given that this will be the last post on this thread I'll finish with a reminder of the details provided earlier by Mark's colleague on Track Driver magazine. If you wish to contribute to Mark's costs, or even frankly to send a note offering your support, you can do so via paypal using the email address appeal@trackdriver.com.
Whilst there have been some very sage observations from people in the legal, publishing and racecar engineering professions which have added much to the debate, some of the armchair "experts" who've inferred things publicly about Mark Hales are quite wrong and not armed with all the information with which to comment.
It really isn't for me to make comments about whether the judgement was correct or not because I wasn't in court on the day and, frankly, it matters not one bit what me or any of us think about the decision.
However what I can say is this; Mark Hales is, in the experience of many of my colleagues in this business and gained over many years, a very honest and decent bloke, someone with exceptional mechanical sympathy and a great deal of experience driving cars of this kind. Someone more qualified than almost anyone I can think of to drive the cars he does and to convey to us magazine readers what it is like to experience them. That he now faces an extremely uncertain financial future due to a single incident in an otherwise remarkable career is a huge shame, no matter what one might think of the circumstances which have led to him being in this position.
There have been many who've expressed a desire to try to help Mark. There are plans afoot to organise something more formally but, given that this will be the last post on this thread I'll finish with a reminder of the details provided earlier by Mark's colleague on Track Driver magazine. If you wish to contribute to Mark's costs, or even frankly to send a note offering your support, you can do so via paypal using the email address appeal@trackdriver.com.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff