RE: Don't demonise the Carrera GT: PH Blog
Discussion
As others have alluded to, it's all about personal responsiblity. Cars aren't dangerous on their own. They aren't dangerous when driven sensibly. They are only dangerous when they are driven beyond the capabilities of the person behind the wheel.
The Mail has done what it does best; constructed a piece of sensationalist bulls
t in the name of 'journalism'. Poorly researched and written, complete with expert testimony (taken wildly out of context, I might add). The whole article is laughable.
People crash their ordinary cars every day. Some people die in those crashes, yet people barely bat an eyelid. It's just an unfortunate series of events in which two people have died. Nothing more, nothing less. However, one of those people was high profile, and was in an extraordinary car. It's just an opportunity for the hand wringers to get on their soapboxes and preach their ridiculous views.
We should ban the Daily Mail. It's a dangerous publication, because it's readers take it's word as law.
The Mail has done what it does best; constructed a piece of sensationalist bulls
t in the name of 'journalism'. Poorly researched and written, complete with expert testimony (taken wildly out of context, I might add). The whole article is laughable. People crash their ordinary cars every day. Some people die in those crashes, yet people barely bat an eyelid. It's just an unfortunate series of events in which two people have died. Nothing more, nothing less. However, one of those people was high profile, and was in an extraordinary car. It's just an opportunity for the hand wringers to get on their soapboxes and preach their ridiculous views.
We should ban the Daily Mail. It's a dangerous publication, because it's readers take it's word as law.
Nobody is mentioning the Walter Rohrl comments about the CGT - nor the number of written of CGTs reported in for example California by serious sources. I think the CGT has tricky handling at the limit, and in a critical situation that can be the difference between keeping control and a fatal accident. Speed isn't the real problem - all head-on collisions above 100 km/h are potentially fatal.
C,
Very well written on what is a sensitive topic right now. How many CCTs are now on old rubber?
With regard to the 918, don't forget to try the LC...Sorry I mean the brake feel at low speed, with regard to recharge, as in can you feel it. I could not. Also please try and remove the roof when testing, if only in part.
Safe Trip
Very well written on what is a sensitive topic right now. How many CCTs are now on old rubber?
With regard to the 918, don't forget to try the LC...Sorry I mean the brake feel at low speed, with regard to recharge, as in can you feel it. I could not. Also please try and remove the roof when testing, if only in part.
Safe Trip
Max_Torque said:
Can i suggest it is far simpler than that.
two words:
Personal Responsibility
In an age where it is always "someone elses fault", perhaps we should stop lying to ourselves and take a long hard look inwards, rather than getting out the blamethrower and targeting everything except the truth.
The fact of the matter in this particular case, is that Paul Walker was in THAT particular car precisely BECAUSE of its physical characteristics. He could have chosen to simply have been driven home in a Prius for example and be alive today. Yet he didn't. The lure and thrill of a supercar, in conjunction with a driver overstepping their personal responsibility lead to his death.
Nobody forced him to get into that car. He knew the risk he was taking and he chose to do that.
For me, the current trend to have to protect us for ourselves is idiotic and pointless.
^^^ This. Wanna drive a fast car fast???? You may die. It is not the fault of the car. two words:
Personal Responsibility
In an age where it is always "someone elses fault", perhaps we should stop lying to ourselves and take a long hard look inwards, rather than getting out the blamethrower and targeting everything except the truth.
The fact of the matter in this particular case, is that Paul Walker was in THAT particular car precisely BECAUSE of its physical characteristics. He could have chosen to simply have been driven home in a Prius for example and be alive today. Yet he didn't. The lure and thrill of a supercar, in conjunction with a driver overstepping their personal responsibility lead to his death.
Nobody forced him to get into that car. He knew the risk he was taking and he chose to do that.
For me, the current trend to have to protect us for ourselves is idiotic and pointless.
I recently completed a safety course at work where there was a tale of a guy who had stuck an electric drill up his nose as it was itching. Unable to scratch the itch, he decided the best thing to do would be to turn the drill on…….cue ripping half his face off as the drill tore through his nose. He successfully sued the manufacturer of the drill as no-where in the manual did it say that this was a really f
king stupid thing to do and not to do it as, surprise, surprise…..it might sting a bit.We live in a society where personal responsibility has been forgotten and idiocy is handsomely rewarded through compensation.
Stupidity appears to be celebrated by both the media and legal system these days.
The CGT does NOT need to be banned. Plenty more people die in Vauxhalls but the f
ktards at the Daily Mail aren't calling for them to banned are they???I drive quickly and got a lecture off my wife last night about it. She's right. I have become complacent and cocky and needed someone to tell me to reign it in. It's easy to get carried away in a fast car and I'm sure 90% of Pher's will have had close calls when driving fast. I appreciated her advice.
Just sensationalist BS from the DM again. f
ktards!The accident should remind us all though of just what can happen to us so quickly.
Not surprisingly, it’s left to Chris Harris to provide by far the most articulate, thoughtful and nuanced analysis of the Paul Walker crash - great article and thank you for writing it, CH.
But I’m still a bit confused about one point; the “driving a slower car fast” concept, the merits of which Chris calls into question:
"Next stop for the social media jury was that old chestnut 'less is more'. I enjoy this one because I have personal experience of it. I've never crashed a Carrera GT, but when one colleague wistfully remembered the first Lotus Elise in the context of a purer driving experience that seems to have been lost in the race for outright numbers (an opinion I have much sympathy with), he also used it in the context of safety. As in, with 118hp, everything happens at lower speed. Well, I crashed my S1 Elise at a reasonable lick and, as for active safety, it remains the most treacherous handling car I've driven on wet roads. Next to it a CGT is a tabby cat."
I’ve reread this paragraph and I’m still not sure I follow: that Chris crashed his 118hp S1 Elise, lacking in active safety as it was, makes it dangerous, sure. But wouldn’t the speed at which he crashed that car - at a speed that I have to assume would have been much less than that of Paul Walker’s Carrera GT - have contributed to surviving that crash? Is that not one of the obvious benefits of driving a slow car fast, even one without the active safety trickery of a car like the Carrera GT? In other words, and forgive me for stating the obvious, but if the speed at which the "grin factor" can be attained in an Elise is so much lower than that of the Carrera GT, then how is that not safer?
[EDIT: just want to clarify I'm not in favour of any kind of reactionary speed legislation, just curious about the safety merits - or lack thereof - of reaching performance limits earlier in a slower, less capable car than the CGT]
But I’m still a bit confused about one point; the “driving a slower car fast” concept, the merits of which Chris calls into question:
"Next stop for the social media jury was that old chestnut 'less is more'. I enjoy this one because I have personal experience of it. I've never crashed a Carrera GT, but when one colleague wistfully remembered the first Lotus Elise in the context of a purer driving experience that seems to have been lost in the race for outright numbers (an opinion I have much sympathy with), he also used it in the context of safety. As in, with 118hp, everything happens at lower speed. Well, I crashed my S1 Elise at a reasonable lick and, as for active safety, it remains the most treacherous handling car I've driven on wet roads. Next to it a CGT is a tabby cat."
I’ve reread this paragraph and I’m still not sure I follow: that Chris crashed his 118hp S1 Elise, lacking in active safety as it was, makes it dangerous, sure. But wouldn’t the speed at which he crashed that car - at a speed that I have to assume would have been much less than that of Paul Walker’s Carrera GT - have contributed to surviving that crash? Is that not one of the obvious benefits of driving a slow car fast, even one without the active safety trickery of a car like the Carrera GT? In other words, and forgive me for stating the obvious, but if the speed at which the "grin factor" can be attained in an Elise is so much lower than that of the Carrera GT, then how is that not safer?
[EDIT: just want to clarify I'm not in favour of any kind of reactionary speed legislation, just curious about the safety merits - or lack thereof - of reaching performance limits earlier in a slower, less capable car than the CGT]
Edited by BrockLanders on Thursday 5th December 18:53
I have driven a CGT and owned a VX220. I have to say the CGT scared the willies out of me. I drove it 800 miles and never got used to the light-switch clutch, the twitchyness of it or the dreadful rear vision.
But I don't think that the CGT is being demonised. It's not being singled out, it's "porsche" and "fast cars" which are seeing the wrath. Those that would do this don't know what a CGT is.
Simon
But I don't think that the CGT is being demonised. It's not being singled out, it's "porsche" and "fast cars" which are seeing the wrath. Those that would do this don't know what a CGT is.
Simon
People do dumb things every day. Sadly, this sometimes kills them. I would wager way more people die in slow hatchbacks than fast supercars. The method of dumbness is irrelevant, which is why you can't (and shouldn't try to) legislate against it.
People who support (more) legislation against doing things that are obviously dumb or already illegal generally have some other hidden agenda, or are themselves dumb. We need less red tape, not more. We need more responsibility (both personal and collective), not less. We particularly need more people to engage their brains before they do something, rather than /ever/ assuming that people will have somehow legislated out the risks in life.
People who support (more) legislation against doing things that are obviously dumb or already illegal generally have some other hidden agenda, or are themselves dumb. We need less red tape, not more. We need more responsibility (both personal and collective), not less. We particularly need more people to engage their brains before they do something, rather than /ever/ assuming that people will have somehow legislated out the risks in life.
You can take the silly news paper talk with a pinch of salt but its been reported the driver was doing 110 mph, lets assume he was doing 80 mph, that speed and sideways into a lamp post is going to end your day quick.
I would say Paul's mate was rich but not a very good driver thus his bag of talent ran out quick when things went wrong at a speed to fast for a built up area,
If they were in a 650 hp Mustang and died would they be calling for Mustangs to be banned, No they wouldn't, its just an over reaction to a tragic accident, the yanks are very very good at over reacting.
I would say Paul's mate was rich but not a very good driver thus his bag of talent ran out quick when things went wrong at a speed to fast for a built up area,
If they were in a 650 hp Mustang and died would they be calling for Mustangs to be banned, No they wouldn't, its just an over reaction to a tragic accident, the yanks are very very good at over reacting.
It obviously awful for anyone to be killed in such a manner, or indeed much worse for the family and friends that have been left behind.
Has anyone taken a look at where the accident happened on a map?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=25601+hercules+st+v...
I am sure they didnt just happen upon that street - it's an industrial area with 4 or 5 lane wide streets, and a giant cul-de-sac circuit going nowhere. Coincidence?
In my opinion (which is all it is!) they exited a long fast curve onto the straight where the smashed car came to rest, over cooked it on the throttle, and as a result lost control and ended where they did.
Are we also forgetting that Paul Walker is the lead role in a series of movies that glorify street racing, and is in part responsible for the copy-cat culture of influencing others to mimic that. Whether he was racing with someone else, or they were just trying to push the car towards its performance limits, their actions caused the crash. What if there had been pedestrians etc that had been hurt of killed? He chose to ride in that car, and clearly take the de-tour around a cul-de-sac to push the car.
The CGT is an amazing car and one that the lucky few that have driven / owned should be proud of. It does not suffer fools, it does not have a lot of the electronics of a current super/hyper car - the exact point that Chris Harris gets to in his well written article - those electronics that remove a lot of the excitement of a car, and the skill required to drive it. Anyone could jump in and drive fast in a modern electronically governed supercar (and drive beyond your abilities letting the electronics protect you) but that was not the case in the earlier generations of super cars like the CGT.
Has anyone taken a look at where the accident happened on a map?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=25601+hercules+st+v...
I am sure they didnt just happen upon that street - it's an industrial area with 4 or 5 lane wide streets, and a giant cul-de-sac circuit going nowhere. Coincidence?
In my opinion (which is all it is!) they exited a long fast curve onto the straight where the smashed car came to rest, over cooked it on the throttle, and as a result lost control and ended where they did.
Are we also forgetting that Paul Walker is the lead role in a series of movies that glorify street racing, and is in part responsible for the copy-cat culture of influencing others to mimic that. Whether he was racing with someone else, or they were just trying to push the car towards its performance limits, their actions caused the crash. What if there had been pedestrians etc that had been hurt of killed? He chose to ride in that car, and clearly take the de-tour around a cul-de-sac to push the car.
The CGT is an amazing car and one that the lucky few that have driven / owned should be proud of. It does not suffer fools, it does not have a lot of the electronics of a current super/hyper car - the exact point that Chris Harris gets to in his well written article - those electronics that remove a lot of the excitement of a car, and the skill required to drive it. Anyone could jump in and drive fast in a modern electronically governed supercar (and drive beyond your abilities letting the electronics protect you) but that was not the case in the earlier generations of super cars like the CGT.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is exactly what I was going to say! The man with probably the greatest number of videos worldwide featuring illegal on-road driving saying that he cannot possibly have encouraged anybody to drive beyond their limits on the road is laughable.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIcGHY_Al_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk-6s-ZhlYs
......
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Sliding a car is not driving beyond your limits, spinning or crashing a car is. As Chris Harris has repeatedly demonstrated, he is well capable of sliding a car whether on road or track, without having an accident, or spinning etc. so is clearly fully in control of the car and driving within his own limits and therefore safely doing so.bqf said:
rohrl said:
Shambler said:
Have to disagree. Any car with more than 140 bhp is way way too much.
My FIAT Uno had 55bhp and frankly anyone who wants more is a speed-crazed maniac.
wonder what Walter would sat about it all..."The initial suggestion from one colleague - I'll stop short of calling it an accusation - was that in driving cars the way I do, that is to say in a manner many owners of such vehicles cannot replicate safely themselves, I am encouraging those drivers to do the same on public roads.
This is of course nonsense."
It's not.
" It is not possible to connect a video of a hypercar going sideways to a crash on the public road."
Unfortunately it is.
We want to emulate you, and, by default, you encourage us.
Monkey see, monkey do.........
This is of course nonsense."
It's not.
" It is not possible to connect a video of a hypercar going sideways to a crash on the public road."
Unfortunately it is.
We want to emulate you, and, by default, you encourage us.
Monkey see, monkey do.........
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff