Discussion
flemke said:
trackdemon said:
TurboTerrific9 said:
VladD said:
TurboTerrific9 said:
Stuff
TT9, what are you planning on doing with yours? Are you going to modify it in any way? Will you be doing any track days or tours? I assume it won't be a daily driver, but do you plan on using it on a regular basis? Just interested to know your reasons for buying it part from the obvious wanting to own an F1 thing.I plan to keep it pretty much as original as possible, with the exception of maybe adding the new titanium exhaust. Other than that I really don't think it needs anything. It will go back to McLaren in the winter for a good going over, service and tanks etc.
I will drive it for fun, but I certainly plan to put a good amount of mileage on the car. Doubt I'll track it as most modern machinery will out-brake it with ease and I don't fancy a Caterham darting up the inside of me as we head into a corner.
Edited by trackdemon on Saturday 12th July 13:20
flemke said:
As was said a few pages back, the F1 may not offer the objectively "best" drive amongst road cars, with at least the Zonda and CGT being ahead of it, by some measures well ahead of it. I do think, however, that the F1 offers the most exhilarating and potentially most satisfying drive.
Driving, even passengering in, an F1 I think will always be a special experience.I think the experience is dominated by two things ... the engine, and the sheer rarity/specialness/value of the car, IMHO.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already but there is a charity raffle for a ride in an F1 GTR at this month's Silverstone Classic. Tenner a ticket... https://twitter.com/Andy74b/status/488026667173289...
Animal said:
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already but there is a charity raffle for a ride in an F1 GTR at this month's Silverstone Classic. Tenner a ticket... https://twitter.com/Andy74b/status/488026667173289...
I suspect that Flemke would happily do something similar, but his predisposition to keeping a low profile prevents him being able to. Maybe he could get Tiff Needell to do the driving for him (Assuming he thinks Tiff is up to the job)flemke said:
OutOfSync said:
3. It would not just be £47k to settle - he would also have to pay his legal costs up to that point. I have no idea what they would be but presumably around £25k (assuming that the £100k of legal costs was evenly split between claimant and defendant).
In your business, does "settle" necessarily connote total capitulation?If the two sides negotiate something between what the plaintiff is seeking and zero, does that not count as a settlement?
Piper too could have been afflicted by the "I'm right and I won't settle for anything less" syndrome, but surely he too should have been advised that there was some risk that he would lose.
The courts want people to "settle" their differences by meeting in the middle. To that end, parties are encouraged to make what are known as Part 36 offers to each other.
These are essentially reasonable offers of settlement (eg for £47k) which can be refused or accepted.
The parties are incentivised to make/accept these offers because if you are given an offer which you refuse, and then fail to achieve a better result in court, you will be severely punished on costs by the judge for essentially wasting everyone's time and money by not accepting an offer which was more than fair.
In this case I'm sure that the DP's advisers would have thought very carefully about the quantum of the settlement offer in the hope that if MH refused it, he would be unlikely to beat it at trial. The upshot of that is that MH would pay DP legal costs (and his own) from that moment on.
isaldiri said:
Joe911 said:
Flemke is away for a couple of weeks, not sure if he'll be responding any time soon.
I would say, and I think that he would say - that the CGT is more predictable and has a considerably better chassis. Personally I would rate very few (if any) cars above the CGT in terms of build quality, chassis, and overall driving experience. His CGT is not yet on the new supersport tyres.
ah, cheers for the reply and pretty interesting your thoughts about the CGT on the older tyres. Would be quite keen to see what difference you think the newer tyres make when they get fitted as well.I would say, and I think that he would say - that the CGT is more predictable and has a considerably better chassis. Personally I would rate very few (if any) cars above the CGT in terms of build quality, chassis, and overall driving experience. His CGT is not yet on the new supersport tyres.
anniesdad said:
wtdoom runs Supersports on his CGT. He's very enthusiastic about the car and I'm sure would be only to happy to share his experiences with them.
Stafan1 is also a mate, and he's got them on his. I'm sure as soon as Flemke's needs tyres it'll go to the new Supersports.
OutOfSync said:
flemke said:
OutOfSync said:
3. It would not just be £47k to settle - he would also have to pay his legal costs up to that point. I have no idea what they would be but presumably around £25k (assuming that the £100k of legal costs was evenly split between claimant and defendant).
In your business, does "settle" necessarily connote total capitulation?If the two sides negotiate something between what the plaintiff is seeking and zero, does that not count as a settlement?
Piper too could have been afflicted by the "I'm right and I won't settle for anything less" syndrome, but surely he too should have been advised that there was some risk that he would lose.
The courts want people to "settle" their differences by meeting in the middle. To that end, parties are encouraged to make what are known as Part 36 offers to each other.
These are essentially reasonable offers of settlement (eg for £47k) which can be refused or accepted.
The parties are incentivised to make/accept these offers because if you are given an offer which you refuse, and then fail to achieve a better result in court, you will be severely punished on costs by the judge for essentially wasting everyone's time and money by not accepting an offer which was more than fair.
In this case I'm sure that the DP's advisers would have thought very carefully about the quantum of the settlement offer in the hope that if MH refused it, he would be unlikely to beat it at trial. The upshot of that is that MH would pay DP legal costs (and his own) from that moment on.
David Piper was never going to do better than to break even, and there was always some risk that he would fail in court, not to mention the imposition and strain on one's personal life that court actions inevitably impose.
If at the very beginning his best case was £47k, and there was some probability that he would not do that well, then the expected value to Piper was less than £47k, and in pure money terms the rational thing to do would have been to be willing to settle for a sum less than £47k. My question related to the rationale behind insisting on being paid the full £47k, when his expected value early on was less than that.
flemke said:
Thanks for explaining that.
David Piper was never going to do better than to break even, and there was always some risk that he would fail in court, not to mention the imposition and strain on one's personal life that court actions inevitably impose.
If at the very beginning his best case was £47k, and there was some probability that he would not do that well, then the expected value to Piper was less than £47k, and in pure money terms the rational thing to do would have been to be willing to settle for a sum less than £47k. My question related to the rationale behind insisting on being paid the full £47k, when his expected value early on was less than that.
Who can say that DP didn't put in an offer of less than £47k, which MH then rejected?David Piper was never going to do better than to break even, and there was always some risk that he would fail in court, not to mention the imposition and strain on one's personal life that court actions inevitably impose.
If at the very beginning his best case was £47k, and there was some probability that he would not do that well, then the expected value to Piper was less than £47k, and in pure money terms the rational thing to do would have been to be willing to settle for a sum less than £47k. My question related to the rationale behind insisting on being paid the full £47k, when his expected value early on was less than that.
In the end, however, the court awarded him the full sum (how could it not, on the evidence), plus his costs (because he won, and Hales had not put a better offer in during the proceedings to protect his costs position). You can make some assumptions from that, but in reality we cannot be sure what was done behind the scenes in terms of advice and settlement offers.
will_ said:
Who can say that DP didn't put in an offer of less than £47k, which MH then rejected?
In the end, however, the court awarded him the full sum (how could it not, on the evidence), plus his costs (because he won, and Hales had not put a better offer in during the proceedings to protect his costs position). You can make some assumptions from that, but in reality we cannot be sure what was done behind the scenes in terms of advice and settlement offers.
At this point I have no idea what anyone (including probably myself) is saying here.In the end, however, the court awarded him the full sum (how could it not, on the evidence), plus his costs (because he won, and Hales had not put a better offer in during the proceedings to protect his costs position). You can make some assumptions from that, but in reality we cannot be sure what was done behind the scenes in terms of advice and settlement offers.
OutOfSync had said,"It would not just be £47k to settle - he would also have to pay his legal costs up to that point."
That sentence seemed to me to imply that "settle" could not, early on, have included a meeting somewhere between £0 and £47k. I queried this.
OutOfSync replied as above, in a way that I think did not directly clarify the point I sought, perhaps because I had not expressed myself properly. I thought it better not to pursue this further.
AFAIK, "settle" in the case of a court action can mean for both parties "to agree to end the proceedings, on terms of their mutual acceptance" at any time prior to the moment that the court has passed judgment.
flemke said:
At this point I have no idea what anyone (including probably myself) is saying here.
OutOfSync had said,"It would not just be £47k to settle - he would also have to pay his legal costs up to that point."
That sentence seemed to me to imply that "settle" could not, early on, have included a meeting somewhere between £0 and £47k. I queried this.
OutOfSync replied as above, in a way that I think did not directly clarify the point I sought, perhaps because I had not expressed myself properly. I thought it better not to pursue this further.
AFAIK, "settle" in the case of a court action can mean for both parties "to agree to end the proceedings, on terms of their mutual acceptance" at any time prior to the moment that the court has passed judgment.
OutOfSync isn't quite correct - a settlement may involve the agreement to pay reasonable costs over and above the sum offered for settlement (but it doesn't have to). OutOfSync had said,"It would not just be £47k to settle - he would also have to pay his legal costs up to that point."
That sentence seemed to me to imply that "settle" could not, early on, have included a meeting somewhere between £0 and £47k. I queried this.
OutOfSync replied as above, in a way that I think did not directly clarify the point I sought, perhaps because I had not expressed myself properly. I thought it better not to pursue this further.
AFAIK, "settle" in the case of a court action can mean for both parties "to agree to end the proceedings, on terms of their mutual acceptance" at any time prior to the moment that the court has passed judgment.
So MH or DP could have sought to settle at any point of the proceedings, at any sum between £0 and £47k, plus costs or excluding costs. Obviously the costs point becomes more pressing the longer the matter proceeds and the higher the costs therefore become. The costs often outweigh the value of the claim.
You can even settle a case post judgment to avoid the further costs and risks of an appeal.
I think the point is that we cannot be sure what offers were made and rejected by either side. I would think that DP would have been advised to make an offer, but MH was not obliged to accept it. We know that MH made an offer, but we do not know how much that was for nor when it was made. In the end neither party made an offer acceptable to the other, hence the trial, where DP was wholly successful.
Well, after a couple of months reading this thread I've finally reached this point. I started reading, not so much because of my interest in the F1 (although that has increased markedly during the time I've spent here), rather that I had a personal interest: back in September 2005 my son and I met Flemke at the 'Ring where he gave each of us a passenger lap in his GT3.
Accuse me if you choose, of brown-nosing, but I still remember that meeting with a very courteous, talented but low-key gentleman. I met him again a couple of years later, once more at the 'Ring, during practice for a VLN race when I had a passenger lap (not with him) in a 996 Cup car which I believe was his.
I didn't know it at the time, but he and my father shared an occupation; they had both been cabinet makers, although later my father changed direction and became a shipwright with Cammell Laird's. Flemke's change of career was obviously more lucrative!
WRT Flemke's struggle to find the colour he wanted, I have to say that I very much liked the first blue iteration and was surprised to find that I liked the second even more. When it comes to the “squiggle” a bit of whimsy is surely permitted; maybe a kiwi in the same thin line would have been even better?
Postscript: Flemke, if you ever tire of your present location, we have some of the finest driving roads round here: Shropshire, Herefordshire and Mid Wales. You could buy a comfortable property in this area with space to store all your cars, for considerably less than the cost of your P1.
Edited by chriskay on Sunday 20th July 17:06
will_ said:
flemke said:
At this point I have no idea what anyone (including probably myself) is saying here.
OutOfSync had said,"It would not just be £47k to settle - he would also have to pay his legal costs up to that point."
That sentence seemed to me to imply that "settle" could not, early on, have included a meeting somewhere between £0 and £47k. I queried this.
OutOfSync replied as above, in a way that I think did not directly clarify the point I sought, perhaps because I had not expressed myself properly. I thought it better not to pursue this further.
AFAIK, "settle" in the case of a court action can mean for both parties "to agree to end the proceedings, on terms of their mutual acceptance" at any time prior to the moment that the court has passed judgment.
OutOfSync isn't quite correct - a settlement may involve the agreement to pay reasonable costs over and above the sum offered for settlement (but it doesn't have to). OutOfSync had said,"It would not just be £47k to settle - he would also have to pay his legal costs up to that point."
That sentence seemed to me to imply that "settle" could not, early on, have included a meeting somewhere between £0 and £47k. I queried this.
OutOfSync replied as above, in a way that I think did not directly clarify the point I sought, perhaps because I had not expressed myself properly. I thought it better not to pursue this further.
AFAIK, "settle" in the case of a court action can mean for both parties "to agree to end the proceedings, on terms of their mutual acceptance" at any time prior to the moment that the court has passed judgment.
So MH or DP could have sought to settle at any point of the proceedings, at any sum between £0 and £47k, plus costs or excluding costs. Obviously the costs point becomes more pressing the longer the matter proceeds and the higher the costs therefore become. The costs often outweigh the value of the claim.
You can even settle a case post judgment to avoid the further costs and risks of an appeal.
I think the point is that we cannot be sure what offers were made and rejected by either side. I would think that DP would have been advised to make an offer, but MH was not obliged to accept it. We know that MH made an offer, but we do not know how much that was for nor when it was made. In the end neither party made an offer acceptable to the other, hence the trial, where DP was wholly successful.
Back on topic, I was given a tour around the McLaren factory the other day. I must say that it is an incredibly cool set up that they have there and I loved the juxtaposition of some of the most advanced tech in the world being next to some of the most basic (eg using hair driers on the carbon fibre as it's still the best means of preparing it).
Also the historical relevance of the cars sitting in the lobby is worth the trip on their own.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff