Journalist sued after 917 engine explodes
Discussion
BertBert said:
So they are agreed it failed because of an over-rev and just arguing over liability?
Bert
Looks like itBert
Car failed with Hales at the wheel and appears there is no argument that it failed due to buzzing thE engine to 8200
Hales says there was agearbox fault, Piper says there was none
Would Piper have let the car be used with a pre existing fault like that?, seems pretty unlikely
Would Hales have continued to drive a car (of this value) with a faulty gearbox?, seem spretty unlikley
Did Hales miss a shift and buzz the engine? Semms far more likey, after all factory drivers did it back in the day
Article says it was for a track test in Auto Italia, I think it coincides with the same test being published in 911&PW, I recall Pipers car being on the cover. Need to dig ot out and re read it
But faults never happen when stuff isn't used.
If this could also have happened to David, why should Mark be asked to pay ?
And one other point, if the rebuilt engine is now lifed better than the original engine, what contribution should David Piper expect to make before asking for a balance ?
Is it possible that without previous wear the over-rev could have been a survivable event ?
If this could also have happened to David, why should Mark be asked to pay ?
And one other point, if the rebuilt engine is now lifed better than the original engine, what contribution should David Piper expect to make before asking for a balance ?
Is it possible that without previous wear the over-rev could have been a survivable event ?
Edited by ChrisW. on Friday 18th January 23:28
I know nothing of this case, but would just like to say that I've enjoyed, and greatly benefited from some driver training from Mark Hales, and if I were going to loan any of my own cars to a racing driver, Mark would be very high on my list. He is, in my view a very sensitive and thoughtful driver with a very high skill set, if he was not, he would not be entrusted, by knowledgeable people with the kind of machinery that he races so beautifully. It's very sad to see such things being dragged through the Courts.
I remember a few years ago drinking a coffee at Autosport International and a couple of guys next to me were talking about a test for a mag (not Auto Italia, I hasten to add) of a 917 where a fault was spotted, but the cost on the insurance was so high and the story/test hadn't been completed, that they decided to continue regardless. From what I could tell, that engine then lunched itself and the s
t hit the fan.
At the time I didn't think anything of it of course but perhaps 917s are indeed prone to this. I assume that if that story is public knowledge, it might be used as a parallel in this cae?
t hit the fan.At the time I didn't think anything of it of course but perhaps 917s are indeed prone to this. I assume that if that story is public knowledge, it might be used as a parallel in this cae?
ChrisW. said:
But faults never happen when stuff isn't used.
If this could also have happened to David, why should Mark be asked to pay ?
Because the claim is that the engine was over revved due to a driver error by HalesIf this could also have happened to David, why should Mark be asked to pay ?
Here is the 911& PW issue July 2009
http://www.911porscheworld.com/shop.aspx?dept_id=1...
Edited by freedman on Saturday 19th January 09:11
I'm not sure how many guys reading this thread are experienced racers but for those who arn't I thought I'd give you some background.
The cost of running GT Cars is very high. A typical test in a Carrera cup car is about £5-10k. A test in a sports prototype was around £20k when I raced them in the 1980's. I would guess its North of £50k now. The value of the 917 is far more than any current sports prototype. I know of an owner of a 917 of similar provenance to Mr Pipers who turned down an offer of 7 million for it. I do not know the costs of running a 917 at a test but it will be a LOT of money. So this test would have been a very big deal in terms of cost and risk to both the owner and the driver.
If a racing driver is invited to test a car for a team, he will be expected to pay for any costs or repair that arose during the test, ie chasis, engine, transmission. Basically anything that breaks while the driver is in control of the car. This is the general rule of the paddock. Rarely is it enforced by contract although I have signed contracts in the past but for me they were specific to a works drive, the main element of which was to prevent me from driving for a competitor's team for the rest of the season. My sponsor, however was expected to sign a contract relating to damage.
The lawyers amongst you may be surprised that despite the absence of contracts, most damages during testing or racing are settled amicably. It is very rare for disputes to go to law. I have only heard of a few cases. It is generally encumbent on the driver to pay for all costs. To most club drivers, such incidents can have a catastrophic effects of their budgets. It is not unheard of that a driver can write off his entire seasons budget on an accident or incident during a test of a car.
So this is the general background regarding incidents in motorsport. They are an idea of the general unwritten rules of driving team or separate owner cars and the potential costs.
It is interesting that there are probably far more legal disputes that occur during track days where inexperienced drivers who drive into each other with regular monotony seem intent on taking the resulting tantrum to the courts. So far they have seen sense but I've no doubt that one day a driver will be prosecuted for his driving during a trackday and that will probably sign the death knell for most of us who enjoy to drive our cars on the circuit.
Due to the relative cost of running the 917 compared to the costs involved in this incident I would guess that this case may have been brought from a matter of principle. Mr Piper comes from an age of racing where death or serious injury were a genuine reality every time he was strapped in a car (If you have time, google him and you will understand). Drivers accepted the risks and got on with it. The costs or repairing cars and who paid for it was a given in those times.
As I said before, I am genuinely sorry not only for Mr Piper and Mr Hales but also for motorsport in general because the judgement in this case could be very far reaching and it will be very difficult for Teams and drivers going forward. I can see no good coming from this action.
The cost of running GT Cars is very high. A typical test in a Carrera cup car is about £5-10k. A test in a sports prototype was around £20k when I raced them in the 1980's. I would guess its North of £50k now. The value of the 917 is far more than any current sports prototype. I know of an owner of a 917 of similar provenance to Mr Pipers who turned down an offer of 7 million for it. I do not know the costs of running a 917 at a test but it will be a LOT of money. So this test would have been a very big deal in terms of cost and risk to both the owner and the driver.
If a racing driver is invited to test a car for a team, he will be expected to pay for any costs or repair that arose during the test, ie chasis, engine, transmission. Basically anything that breaks while the driver is in control of the car. This is the general rule of the paddock. Rarely is it enforced by contract although I have signed contracts in the past but for me they were specific to a works drive, the main element of which was to prevent me from driving for a competitor's team for the rest of the season. My sponsor, however was expected to sign a contract relating to damage.
The lawyers amongst you may be surprised that despite the absence of contracts, most damages during testing or racing are settled amicably. It is very rare for disputes to go to law. I have only heard of a few cases. It is generally encumbent on the driver to pay for all costs. To most club drivers, such incidents can have a catastrophic effects of their budgets. It is not unheard of that a driver can write off his entire seasons budget on an accident or incident during a test of a car.
So this is the general background regarding incidents in motorsport. They are an idea of the general unwritten rules of driving team or separate owner cars and the potential costs.
It is interesting that there are probably far more legal disputes that occur during track days where inexperienced drivers who drive into each other with regular monotony seem intent on taking the resulting tantrum to the courts. So far they have seen sense but I've no doubt that one day a driver will be prosecuted for his driving during a trackday and that will probably sign the death knell for most of us who enjoy to drive our cars on the circuit.
Due to the relative cost of running the 917 compared to the costs involved in this incident I would guess that this case may have been brought from a matter of principle. Mr Piper comes from an age of racing where death or serious injury were a genuine reality every time he was strapped in a car (If you have time, google him and you will understand). Drivers accepted the risks and got on with it. The costs or repairing cars and who paid for it was a given in those times.
As I said before, I am genuinely sorry not only for Mr Piper and Mr Hales but also for motorsport in general because the judgement in this case could be very far reaching and it will be very difficult for Teams and drivers going forward. I can see no good coming from this action.
Edited by Steve Rance on Saturday 19th January 09:22
Edited by Steve Rance on Saturday 19th January 09:24
Edited by Steve Rance on Saturday 19th January 09:27
posted on other thread but I thought I would ask here too.
Ok Im still stumped... Hales drives the car and then there is this massive amount of damage from an over rev after he has driven a few laps. His defence is that the gearbox had an issue and jumped out.
Question:
1) If the gearbox had an issue why not radio it in to mechanic (assuming there was some type of pit crew there).
2) Why carry on driving it enough for the engine to blow with an issue like that.
3) If Hales is experienced then he would know that the issue with the gearbox he diagnosed could cause an over rev, yet he carried on.
Strange.
Ok Im still stumped... Hales drives the car and then there is this massive amount of damage from an over rev after he has driven a few laps. His defence is that the gearbox had an issue and jumped out.
Question:
1) If the gearbox had an issue why not radio it in to mechanic (assuming there was some type of pit crew there).
2) Why carry on driving it enough for the engine to blow with an issue like that.
3) If Hales is experienced then he would know that the issue with the gearbox he diagnosed could cause an over rev, yet he carried on.
Strange.
Du1point8 said:
Question:
1) If the gearbox had an issue why not radio it in to mechanic (assuming there was some type of pit crew there).
2) Why carry on driving it enough for the engine to blow with an issue like that.
3) If Hales is experienced then he would know that the issue with the gearbox he diagnosed could cause an over rev, yet he carried on.
Strange.
Is that how it went? I would have thought that he was driving it and ended up with a lower gear rather than a higher gear (say 2nd rather than 4th).1) If the gearbox had an issue why not radio it in to mechanic (assuming there was some type of pit crew there).
2) Why carry on driving it enough for the engine to blow with an issue like that.
3) If Hales is experienced then he would know that the issue with the gearbox he diagnosed could cause an over rev, yet he carried on.
Strange.
Clutch up, over-rev, bang all in one go.
Owner says "you muppet why did you select 2nd?"
Journo says "you muppet, I put it in the 4th slot, but it was in 2nd, the gearbox must be faulty".
Lots of oh yes it was, and oh no it wasn'ts ending with "I'll see you in court".
Bert
I think you are blowing things completely out of proportion,50 k on a 917 engine is small and i would say lucky that was all that had happened.
Sample prices a second hand crank 15 to 20k,engine rebuild can take two years because of lack of parts or remake time etc
Steady on values,record auction price so far was about 4.5$ for the can am 917/30,i guess the next auction or private top sale will set the levels higher again.
Its a simple rule is it not for journos,you use it and pay for it,after all the journos are doing it professionally!! if they cant afford to pay by contract to repair or correct insurance ,dont drive it.
I dont think its got much to do with motorsport, if its a professional situation for a magazine article.Plenty of drivers have been pursued by teams/ owners.
The gear selection on most of the Porsche prototypes was/is notoriously poor.
Shame its come to this for two nice guys in motorsport.
Sample prices a second hand crank 15 to 20k,engine rebuild can take two years because of lack of parts or remake time etc
Steady on values,record auction price so far was about 4.5$ for the can am 917/30,i guess the next auction or private top sale will set the levels higher again.
Its a simple rule is it not for journos,you use it and pay for it,after all the journos are doing it professionally!! if they cant afford to pay by contract to repair or correct insurance ,dont drive it.
I dont think its got much to do with motorsport, if its a professional situation for a magazine article.Plenty of drivers have been pursued by teams/ owners.
The gear selection on most of the Porsche prototypes was/is notoriously poor.
Shame its come to this for two nice guys in motorsport.
Steve Rance said:
lots of good stuff
It is obvious that a pay driver even coming along for a test pays for the car and things going wrong. However if he came along for a test, went out, warmed up and the engine went bang on the first lap (without over-revs etc), then I think the debate would ensue.In the case of journo's though they are not pay drivers and I would think it less clear cut especially if it's not their fault. Hence the issue.
Same thing happens with "pro drivers"/coaches. Engine went bang last year when the pro driver went out in testing to put a few laps and a time in for the "am driver" (not me). Engine went bang on 2nd lap. Will the pro expect to pay nothing/some/all? I think much closer to none than all.
Bert
bergmeister said:
I think you are blowing things completely out of proportion,50 k on a 917 engine is small and i would say lucky that was all that had happened.
Sample prices a second hand crank 15 to 20k,engine rebuild can take two years because of lack of parts or remake time etc
Steady on values,record auction price so far was about 4.5$ for the can am 917/30,i guess the next auction or private top sale will set the levels higher again.
Its a simple rule is it not for journos,you use it and pay for it,after all the journos are doing it professionally!! if they cant afford to pay by contract to repair or correct insurance ,dont drive it.
I dont think its got much to do with motorsport, if its a professional situation for a magazine article.Plenty of drivers have been pursued by teams/ owners.
The gear selection on most of the Porsche prototypes was/is notoriously poor.
Shame its come to this for two nice guys in motorsport.
Exactly what was said 2 pages ago.Sample prices a second hand crank 15 to 20k,engine rebuild can take two years because of lack of parts or remake time etc
Steady on values,record auction price so far was about 4.5$ for the can am 917/30,i guess the next auction or private top sale will set the levels higher again.
Its a simple rule is it not for journos,you use it and pay for it,after all the journos are doing it professionally!! if they cant afford to pay by contract to repair or correct insurance ,dont drive it.
I dont think its got much to do with motorsport, if its a professional situation for a magazine article.Plenty of drivers have been pursued by teams/ owners.
The gear selection on most of the Porsche prototypes was/is notoriously poor.
Shame its come to this for two nice guys in motorsport.
Sueing someone for an engine breakdown, and loss of use of the car.
If it was catastrophic failure, the bill wouldn't have been 40k
In proportion its a £12500 3.2 Carrera suffering a £400 bill.
Pathetic.
And I don't really care how fast he went down the mulsanne staight to be honest.
Old enough to know better.
A terrible situation?
What a millionaire car owner with more money than a journo wants to wave his big willy at him.
Pathetic on so many levels.
Would you do the same if it were to happen to yours?
Edited by stuttgartmetal on Saturday 19th January 10:35
stuttgartmetal said:
Pathetic on so many levels.
Would you do the same if it were to happen to yours?
No I don't think it's pathetic, it's just a normal dispute that you see day in and day out on SP&L. One person thinks A, other person thinks not A. Size of argument is £50k. You are probably right that the size doesn't matter that much, it'll be the manner in which it occured and the way the discussion went. Just look at the thread on SP&L about the bailiffs siezing a car and the whole thing escalating all over £100 parking fine in dispute.Would you do the same if it were to happen to yours?
Bert
Lots of the usual speculation here.
These cars were known to be rev-critical in period. Plenty were blown up in period by the best drivers around at the time. It went - 8400rpm: max power (between 580 and 630bhp), max revs 8700-8,800: 9,200rpm shrapnel.
From John Wyer's book 'The Certain Sound' : "The rev limiters were usually set at this speed (8,800rpm) but were not completely reliable and if the drivers missed a gear [it] did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broken camshaft and a blown engine. We lost several engines as a result".
Also "[Hobbs] had the misfortune at Daytona to miss a gear and wreck and engine, a fatally easy thing to do on the 917" and "Being Siffert he had to make a grandstand play and pass them in front of the pits. In doing so he missed a gear and blew the engine".
SS7
These cars were known to be rev-critical in period. Plenty were blown up in period by the best drivers around at the time. It went - 8400rpm: max power (between 580 and 630bhp), max revs 8700-8,800: 9,200rpm shrapnel.
From John Wyer's book 'The Certain Sound' : "The rev limiters were usually set at this speed (8,800rpm) but were not completely reliable and if the drivers missed a gear [it] did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broken camshaft and a blown engine. We lost several engines as a result".
Also "[Hobbs] had the misfortune at Daytona to miss a gear and wreck and engine, a fatally easy thing to do on the 917" and "Being Siffert he had to make a grandstand play and pass them in front of the pits. In doing so he missed a gear and blew the engine".
SS7
I've used my cars a few times with journalists. Although they've only been worth a few grand, they're my cars. I drive, he photographs or makes notes. He doesn't drive it.
What's a journalist going to learn from a couple of minutes carefully driving someone elses' pride and joy, that he couldn't learn better from the owner, who knows it inside out?
What's a journalist going to learn from a couple of minutes carefully driving someone elses' pride and joy, that he couldn't learn better from the owner, who knows it inside out?
David Piper lost a leg in an accident during the filming of Steve McQueen's Le Mans film. Dragging Solar Productions to court for compensation was never even a consideration for David Piper. He accepted his responsibility as a professional driver being paid to do his job.
I wouldn't think he made the decision to take Mark Hales to court lightly at all. I guess for David Piper it was a matter of principle and that if (in his opinion) Mark Hales made a professional mistake while driving then he should assume the responsibility that goes with that.
Piper's opinion didn't agree with Hales' opinion and vice versa. I don't know the facts from both sides: what was agreed beforehand?; what contracts were in place?; so I can't comment on who I think is right or wrong.
It's a sad situation that, given both of the 'gentlemen's' background and reputation should really have been settled amicably out of court.
Edited to add: It could even have been settled fairly between the owner, the driver and the 2 publishers involved.
I wouldn't think he made the decision to take Mark Hales to court lightly at all. I guess for David Piper it was a matter of principle and that if (in his opinion) Mark Hales made a professional mistake while driving then he should assume the responsibility that goes with that.
Piper's opinion didn't agree with Hales' opinion and vice versa. I don't know the facts from both sides: what was agreed beforehand?; what contracts were in place?; so I can't comment on who I think is right or wrong.
It's a sad situation that, given both of the 'gentlemen's' background and reputation should really have been settled amicably out of court.
Edited to add: It could even have been settled fairly between the owner, the driver and the 2 publishers involved.
Edited by RSGulp on Saturday 19th January 12:13
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff