13yr old killed in F50
Discussion
Do you not think that the court will check on any expert witnesses as to how "neutral" they are?
They are usually referred to as "independent witnesses".
Are you implying they aren't really independent and willing to perjure themselves in court? That is a very serious allegation to make - and one that could be considered risky by the powers that be here.
They are usually referred to as "independent witnesses".
Are you implying they aren't really independent and willing to perjure themselves in court? That is a very serious allegation to make - and one that could be considered risky by the powers that be here.
There is rarely a 100% definitive finding in any incident when considering causation. Further, there are subjective inputs in determining the strength of ones assertions. It is commonplace that experts will lend more strength to factors which may give support to their instructing party's case.
Dr Interceptor said:
I’ve never owned a V12 engined car, but I have a whole fleet of V8’s.
I remember one sad occasion when the Stag was down to 7 cylinders due to a faulty lead, and it was a complete bag of spanner’s with no power whatsoever.
SLK55 will knock it's 8 cylinders down to 4 when not required/town use.I remember one sad occasion when the Stag was down to 7 cylinders due to a faulty lead, and it was a complete bag of spanner’s with no power whatsoever.
Not sure what that says about your stag. Wne the TVR runs on 7, you think it's not right. When it drops to 6 you know
Tears while trying to wheedle out of any responsibility for what happened, doesn't play with me.
The running on 6 cylinders thing seems like b
ks too. We have been told repeatedly that he is an experienced driver of similar vehicles and looks after many cars like this. That being the case, how come he didn't notice it was was running badly or 6 cylinders? Or perhaps he did and he just carried on regardless did he? That's the level of care he gives his clients cars is it? No mention of running on 6 cylinders by others who drove it that day AFAIK.
He tried to do a nice thing for a kid but it wasn't his car to do so, and he ran out of talent and didn't think to wear seatbelts.
He needs to take responsibility.
The running on 6 cylinders thing seems like b
ks too. We have been told repeatedly that he is an experienced driver of similar vehicles and looks after many cars like this. That being the case, how come he didn't notice it was was running badly or 6 cylinders? Or perhaps he did and he just carried on regardless did he? That's the level of care he gives his clients cars is it? No mention of running on 6 cylinders by others who drove it that day AFAIK. He tried to do a nice thing for a kid but it wasn't his car to do so, and he ran out of talent and didn't think to wear seatbelts.
He needs to take responsibility.
from here:
http://www.ferrarilife.com/forums/supercars-288-f4...
Like most Ferraris, the F50 is set up to run as separate 6 cylinder engines on the same crank, with separate ignition and fuel injsction components for each bank.
so it would have run like a dog... unless it did that briefly so he gave it more throttle then it flew.
Car above had a corroded plug
lets be honest though, it had performed ok previously in the day...
http://www.ferrarilife.com/forums/supercars-288-f4...
Like most Ferraris, the F50 is set up to run as separate 6 cylinder engines on the same crank, with separate ignition and fuel injsction components for each bank.
so it would have run like a dog... unless it did that briefly so he gave it more throttle then it flew.
Car above had a corroded plug
lets be honest though, it had performed ok previously in the day...
How experienced is he really?? There is a huge difference between moving cars on and off transporters and exercising them on a farm perimeter road? perhaps driving each marque once a month to say driving and racing very high performance cars. I think that he is imagining that there was a fault, when in reality he just wasn't familiar with the power and throttle response of the F50. I've just bought an M3 which is only 400 odd hp and even on the most mundane commutes I have had the occasional 'wiggle' when I have accelerated a little too enthusiastically in lower gears, I am learning the car and have to treat it with a lot of respect. The same with the 456, although a heavy car it is still over 400 hp. You can't just jump in these sorts of cars, particularly the older cars with no electronic help, and show off with out coming a cropper. Just look at youtube and there are loads of vids of owners pulling away in low gears giving it far too much throttle, fish tailing, not knowing what to do and then hitting something.
I just don't buy the car fault, the car was running fine for the evo test, it had just had 50K of work done on it, seems very unlikely to me. If it was running on just one bank it would have sounded bloody awful, you wouldn't just keep driving along with it like that. If he did just keep driving it with it running rough, that dosen't say much for his care and knowledge of high performance cars.
I just don't buy the car fault, the car was running fine for the evo test, it had just had 50K of work done on it, seems very unlikely to me. If it was running on just one bank it would have sounded bloody awful, you wouldn't just keep driving along with it like that. If he did just keep driving it with it running rough, that dosen't say much for his care and knowledge of high performance cars.
Edited by number 46 on Tuesday 27th February 17:12
You need quite a bit of energy to launch and barrel roll a car, it doesn't seem likely to me
that a car running on half its cylinders in the distance he had could do that.
To me, he came round the corner, blipped the throttle, fish tailed the car and before he could
correct it hit the wooden rails sideways causing it to roll.
Very sad all round, I've always hated people asking me to show off performance with a ride on 2 or 4 wheels.
There for the grace of god go most of us here.
that a car running on half its cylinders in the distance he had could do that.
To me, he came round the corner, blipped the throttle, fish tailed the car and before he could
correct it hit the wooden rails sideways causing it to roll.
Very sad all round, I've always hated people asking me to show off performance with a ride on 2 or 4 wheels.
There for the grace of god go most of us here.
tight fart said:
You need quite a bit of energy to launch and barrel roll a car, it doesn't seem likely to me
that a car running on half its cylinders in the distance he had could do that.
To me, he came round the corner, blipped the throttle, fish tailed the car and before he could
correct it hit the wooden rails sideways causing it to roll.
Very sad all round, I've always hated people asking me to show off performance with a ride on 2 or 4 wheels.
There for the grace of god go most of us here.
True, the energy in actually flipping a car is immense. Rolling is relatively easy but an actual flip it's quite something. Mine was at mway speeds and flipped end over end, thank god it was mid engined as it rotated around the mass of the engine and didn't land on the roof.that a car running on half its cylinders in the distance he had could do that.
To me, he came round the corner, blipped the throttle, fish tailed the car and before he could
correct it hit the wooden rails sideways causing it to roll.
Very sad all round, I've always hated people asking me to show off performance with a ride on 2 or 4 wheels.
There for the grace of god go most of us here.
Show rides, it's these situations that lead to accidents. Lad on our apprenticeship lost his arm when his sisters boyfriend took him for a ride.
Just read this, quite a bit to digest.
Prosecution unfamiliar with car, says its all as should be.
Defense worked on loads of them and thinks these units are frequently going wrong.
Ferrari employee, says not that he is aware of, neither denies it or confirms it. But I don't think they or their employees would say anything that could jeopardize the brand.
After reading that, I wouldn't want to be the Jury.
http://www.petrolhedonistic.com/fatal-ferrari-f50-...
Prosecution unfamiliar with car, says its all as should be.
Defense worked on loads of them and thinks these units are frequently going wrong.
Ferrari employee, says not that he is aware of, neither denies it or confirms it. But I don't think they or their employees would say anything that could jeopardize the brand.
After reading that, I wouldn't want to be the Jury.
http://www.petrolhedonistic.com/fatal-ferrari-f50-...
Hmme, interesting reading re. the the cat fire. My 456 had occasional cat over temp lights come on, always on the same left hand bank. Then it suffered a cat fire in that banks cat. whilst I was driving home late one evening. It was only the fact that i quickly noticed it whilst parking the car and very quickly, put a garden hose on the cat under the car that the whole car didn't catch fire !!!
The cat temp control units are known to be temperamental or fail and cause false or intermittent warning lights on the dash, on the 456 when a bank shuts down you do loose power and it does sound very rough, however I have never noticed a sudden very large increase in power when and if the bank runs again. The F50 has a good 50 to 75 hp more power than a 456, but even so I'm not convinced that it would be that much more and so sudden to cause the accident.
However, in my case the fire was caused we think, by the odd why that the original alarm had been fitted, in that it cut off the ignition but not the fuel pump, so that fuel was still going to the bank whilst it had no spark and that un-burnt fuel then went into the cat, which then caught fire. Since fitting a new alarm properly the car runs better than ever and I get no warning lights. Whilst I agree that Aldo Riti is clearly very experienced with these cars and is correct regarding the cat temp units, I still don't buy the fault and the sudden increase in power claim. I think that the cat burnt out was a result of running the car for 20 mins after the accident with a air leak, which caused the ecu to over fuel that bank. Again my 456 had a similar fueling problem on one bank which was put down to an air leak on the inlet manifold gasket/seal.
The subtleties and complications of the experts explanations, I think my baffle the jury. These V12 engines are pretty complex in that they have an ecu, MAF, coil pack, fuel regulators, cat temp sensor and O2 sensors per each bank of 6 cylinders, quite intricate intake tract/throttle bodies etc. so working what may cause a bank to stop running is not simple.
The cat temp control units are known to be temperamental or fail and cause false or intermittent warning lights on the dash, on the 456 when a bank shuts down you do loose power and it does sound very rough, however I have never noticed a sudden very large increase in power when and if the bank runs again. The F50 has a good 50 to 75 hp more power than a 456, but even so I'm not convinced that it would be that much more and so sudden to cause the accident.
However, in my case the fire was caused we think, by the odd why that the original alarm had been fitted, in that it cut off the ignition but not the fuel pump, so that fuel was still going to the bank whilst it had no spark and that un-burnt fuel then went into the cat, which then caught fire. Since fitting a new alarm properly the car runs better than ever and I get no warning lights. Whilst I agree that Aldo Riti is clearly very experienced with these cars and is correct regarding the cat temp units, I still don't buy the fault and the sudden increase in power claim. I think that the cat burnt out was a result of running the car for 20 mins after the accident with a air leak, which caused the ecu to over fuel that bank. Again my 456 had a similar fueling problem on one bank which was put down to an air leak on the inlet manifold gasket/seal.
The subtleties and complications of the experts explanations, I think my baffle the jury. These V12 engines are pretty complex in that they have an ecu, MAF, coil pack, fuel regulators, cat temp sensor and O2 sensors per each bank of 6 cylinders, quite intricate intake tract/throttle bodies etc. so working what may cause a bank to stop running is not simple.
Edited by number 46 on Wednesday 28th February 07:09
Edited by number 46 on Wednesday 28th February 07:17
E24man said:
Regardless of any fault with the car, real or imagined, repeatable or never to be seen again, the driver failed to ensure an underage passenger was correctly secured in a seat belt as was the drivers responsibility.
TBF, the parents were present and didn't insist, either. And he isn't being charged with a seatbelt offence - he's being charged with causing death by careless driving - "driving that falls below the standard of what would be expected of a competent and careful driver". The seatbelt may well be an aggravating factor, but is it enough of itself?Gary C said:
tight fart said:
You need quite a bit of energy to launch and barrel roll a car, it doesn't seem likely to me
that a car running on half its cylinders in the distance he had could do that.
To me, he came round the corner, blipped the throttle, fish tailed the car and before he could
correct it hit the wooden rails sideways causing it to roll.
True, the energy in actually flipping a car is immense. Rolling is relatively easy but an actual flip it's quite something. Mine was at mway speeds and flipped end over end, thank god it was mid engined as it rotated around the mass of the engine and didn't land on the roof.that a car running on half its cylinders in the distance he had could do that.
To me, he came round the corner, blipped the throttle, fish tailed the car and before he could
correct it hit the wooden rails sideways causing it to roll.
SJK said:
After reading that, I wouldn't want to be the Jury.
<nods>"Beyond reasonable doubt"... Not balance of probabilities.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff