Discussion
405dogvan said:
Piper has been a MASSIVE MASSIVE asshole about this - if he didn't want his precious toys damaged he should
a - not lend them to anyone
In fairness nobody had loaned anything to anybody in this case.a - not lend them to anyone
freedman said:
As for 'I don't really think it's possible to attribute blame for something which happens to an antique racing car' Its pretty easy when the driver admits in writing it was his fault
That's quite a polarised view. The driver hadn't 'admitted' it was his fault so much as stated it was his fault, but he may have been wrong. As Graham has pointed out, there is no cover for mechanical failure on any On track policy in the UK.
Typically a Track day (On track) policy covering a Sum Insured of £100,000 rebuild costs on such a car, could be purchased for around £1k - £1.5k per day; but this ONLY covers a car in the event of an accident and/or fire damage (any cause).
Having decided to not take this cover, then as others have said, it was down to the two parties to have a grown up discussion about what would happen in the event of other issues arising e.g. mechanical failure. There was nothing us Motorsport Insurance bunch could have done to "cover" the outcome of the day - responsible lay firmly with the two parties to agree in advance who should pay for what.
Personal view and not that of MMC in any way - looks alot like a owner being given a perfect reason to refresh a car/engine. We see it alot with motorsport claims - waiting for my LM24 ones to come in as we speak. "Had contact after 7 hours with a GT car but managed to finish the race - I want to claim please (so that I have a fresh shiny car for the next race weekend)?!"
Typically a Track day (On track) policy covering a Sum Insured of £100,000 rebuild costs on such a car, could be purchased for around £1k - £1.5k per day; but this ONLY covers a car in the event of an accident and/or fire damage (any cause).
Having decided to not take this cover, then as others have said, it was down to the two parties to have a grown up discussion about what would happen in the event of other issues arising e.g. mechanical failure. There was nothing us Motorsport Insurance bunch could have done to "cover" the outcome of the day - responsible lay firmly with the two parties to agree in advance who should pay for what.
Personal view and not that of MMC in any way - looks alot like a owner being given a perfect reason to refresh a car/engine. We see it alot with motorsport claims - waiting for my LM24 ones to come in as we speak. "Had contact after 7 hours with a GT car but managed to finish the race - I want to claim please (so that I have a fresh shiny car for the next race weekend)?!"
heebeegeetee said:
That's quite a polarised view. The driver hadn't 'admitted' it was his fault so much as stated it was his fault, but he may have been wrong.
No its not polarised, it's a statement of factHales admitted it in writing stated/admitted, semantics
But of course he could have been wrong?? what on earth are you on about
freedman said:
No its not polarised, it's a statement of fact
Hales admitted it in writing stated/admitted, semantics
But of course he could have been wrong?? what on earth are you on about
IIRC (and it was all a little while ago now) the car hadn't been stripped down prior to his making the statement.Hales admitted it in writing stated/admitted, semantics
But of course he could have been wrong?? what on earth are you on about
IIRC He said the engine blew up because he missed a shift, and this statement is true. The issues I see is that a) it was never established that the excess of rpm should have caused the engine failure, and b) the reason that Mark Hales missed a shift is highly likely to be a poor or faulty gear change mechanism (bearing in mind that they weren't great in the day.
So yes, Hales has stated that the engine failed because he missed a gear change, a faulty gear change mech doesn't alter that fact but it does mean that it probably isn't Hales's fault that he missed a shift and nor has it been established that Hales is right to say that his missed shift caused the engine to blow.
To be honest the main issue I have with the whole case is that Hales was stung for the whole refresh and the car was sold directly afterwards. Unless the engine had just been refreshed before Hales drove it then the owner has directly benifited.
I've had it done to me before, I got stung for an engine rebuild by 888 at the end of the season, even though the car likely hadn't had a rebuild all season, so they could sell the car with a fresh engine!
I've had it done to me before, I got stung for an engine rebuild by 888 at the end of the season, even though the car likely hadn't had a rebuild all season, so they could sell the car with a fresh engine!
heebeegeetee said:
IIRC (and it was all a little while ago now) the car hadn't been stripped down prior to his making the statement.
IIRC He said the engine blew up because he missed a shift, and this statement is true. The issues I see is that a) it was never established that the excess of rpm should have caused the engine failure, and b) the reason that Mark Hales missed a shift is highly likely to be a poor or faulty gear change mechanism (bearing in mind that they weren't great in the day.
So yes, Hales has stated that the engine failed because he missed a gear change, a faulty gear change mech doesn't alter that fact but it does mean that it probably isn't Hales's fault that he missed a shift and nor has it been established that Hales is right to say that his missed shift caused the engine to blow.
Did you read the transcript of the court judgement? It's pretty damning.IIRC He said the engine blew up because he missed a shift, and this statement is true. The issues I see is that a) it was never established that the excess of rpm should have caused the engine failure, and b) the reason that Mark Hales missed a shift is highly likely to be a poor or faulty gear change mechanism (bearing in mind that they weren't great in the day.
So yes, Hales has stated that the engine failed because he missed a gear change, a faulty gear change mech doesn't alter that fact but it does mean that it probably isn't Hales's fault that he missed a shift and nor has it been established that Hales is right to say that his missed shift caused the engine to blow.
freedman said:
The Wookie said:
To be honest the main issue I have with the whole case is that Hales was stung for the whole refresh and the car was sold directly afterwards. !
The track test, and engine failure was in 2009 IIRCPiper sold the car last year? So, no, not directly afterwards
freedman said:
The track test, and engine failure was in 2009 IIRC
Piper sold the car last year? So, no, not directly afterwards
Fair enough, but the point still stands. If it's scheduled for an engine rebuild every 30-40 hours say and it was any significant way into that then the owner was still benefitting as it's probably unwise to exceed running time limits between rebuilds on such an expensive, old (in terms of design anyway) and highly tuned engine.Piper sold the car last year? So, no, not directly afterwards
Ahonen said:
freedman said:
The Wookie said:
To be honest the main issue I have with the whole case is that Hales was stung for the whole refresh and the car was sold directly afterwards. !
The track test, and engine failure was in 2009 IIRCPiper sold the car last year? So, no, not directly afterwards
Migual Amaral used to use his fairly frequently and there's a French chap with a 917 and 936 who regularly exercises his in CLM - Jean-Marc Luco is it?
I'm keeping all fingers and toes crossed that Shaun Lynn will use his recently-acquired 917, but we'll have to wait and see.
Anyway, as you were, chaps.
The Wookie said:
Fair enough, but the point still stands. If it's scheduled for an engine rebuild every 30-40 hours say and it was any significant way into that then the owner was still benefitting as it's probably unwise to exceed running time limits between rebuilds on such an expensive, old (in terms of design anyway) and highly tuned engine.
The original bill Hales was asked to pay was less than 50k I believe, ssSeems somewhat cheap to my mind for a full 917 engine overhaul? I'm not an engineer so dont know the ins and outs but once the engine was blown it needed to be rebuilt, maybe Piper got some small benefit from that at reasle, though I doubt it was anything substantial.
The one thing we do know is that it needed to be repaired and Hales was found liable for the associated costs
Gaz. said:
The whole thing could have been avoided if the thing was fitted with a modern adjustable rev limiter. Ok it would compromise an otherwise faithful recreation but I'm sure most would see past that and see it as a very good idea.
probably not. rev limiter really only stops you over reving it by keeping your foot in.missing a gear the motor can still spin up as its unloaded due to inertia.
freedman said:
Oh, I know that, which is why he should have paid the bill when he broke it
I think the point was he couldn't afford the bill even then.. and an offer was made but rejected. so if you cant pay to start with what choice do you have. IIRC he was also fairly badly advised and had poor councilGraham said:
so if you cant pay to start with what choice do you have.
Do you really believe he couldn't pay? I just can't see it. In my experience, his own legal fees would have cost nearly as much as the engine rebuild, now he has to pay his own costs + Piper's costs + the original engine bill.couldnt pay original bill, made offer, offer rejected, taken to court, had to fund own legal costs now cant even pay original offer.. or costs etc etc so in the end piper will almost certainly get less than the original offer, despite having spent loads as Mark now bankrupt..so nothing to pay the award plus 3rd party costs with..
Graham said:
couldnt pay original bill, made offer, offer rejected, taken to court, had to fund own legal costs now cant even pay original offer.. or costs etc etc so in the end piper will almost certainly get less than the original offer, despite having spent loads as Mark now bankrupt..so nothing to pay the award plus 3rd party costs with..
Really? He's been declared bankrupt? if true then he presumably has few assets and the result will be worse for Piper too.Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th June 16:46
Graham said:
couldnt pay original bill, made offer, offer rejected, taken to court, had to fund own legal costs now cant even pay original offer.. or costs etc etc so in the end piper will almost certainly get less than the original offer, despite having spent loads as Mark now bankrupt..so nothing to pay the award plus 3rd party costs with..
How many different income streams does he have, 3, 4, 5?Rather nice farmhouse I believe etc etc, cant raise 50k? Simply not believable
And he isnt bankrupt, yet
Edited by freedman on Monday 24th June 16:42
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff