OOPs CGT no more!
Discussion
A quite frankly pathetic attempt at trying to write a car off. If your going to do it, do it properly and in a nice part of the world for all to see............
www.motorauthority.com/news/superc
Click on the thumbprint for a full screen version
www.motorauthority.com/news/superc
Click on the thumbprint for a full screen version
Big question: what could the speed of impact be? The car looks wrapped like it was made of plastic (I know it's not!)
Regarding the enzo in slippydiff's post, it's the second one I see that gets cut in two exactly the same way. The car desintegrates exactly at the same place, behind the engine.. I am wondering whether that area of the chassis is weaker just by consequence of the rest being so rigid (it does not mean the car is unsafe, what matters is the body shell, and it doesn't mean the chassis of the car is not rigid), or whether it is a specific design feature to have it desintegrate like that on purpose, like that website suggests in the link refering to the California accident.
Kay
Regarding the enzo in slippydiff's post, it's the second one I see that gets cut in two exactly the same way. The car desintegrates exactly at the same place, behind the engine.. I am wondering whether that area of the chassis is weaker just by consequence of the rest being so rigid (it does not mean the car is unsafe, what matters is the body shell, and it doesn't mean the chassis of the car is not rigid), or whether it is a specific design feature to have it desintegrate like that on purpose, like that website suggests in the link refering to the California accident.
Kay
tonikaram said:
Big question: what could the speed of impact be? The car looks wrapped like it was made of plastic (I know it's not!)
Regarding the enzo in slippydiff's post, it's the second one I see that gets cut in two exactly the same way. The car desintegrates exactly at the same place, behind the engine.. I am wondering whether that area of the chassis is weaker just by consequence of the rest being so rigid (it does not mean the car is unsafe, what matters is the body shell, and it doesn't mean the chassis of the car is not rigid), or whether it is a specific design feature to have it desintegrate like that on purpose, like that website suggests in the link refering to the California accident.
Kay
Regarding the enzo in slippydiff's post, it's the second one I see that gets cut in two exactly the same way. The car desintegrates exactly at the same place, behind the engine.. I am wondering whether that area of the chassis is weaker just by consequence of the rest being so rigid (it does not mean the car is unsafe, what matters is the body shell, and it doesn't mean the chassis of the car is not rigid), or whether it is a specific design feature to have it desintegrate like that on purpose, like that website suggests in the link refering to the California accident.
Kay
That would be just in front of the engine I think.
I believe they are designed that way so that in a major smash the heavy bit separates from the light bit with the passengers in. There was some chat about this in the thread about the CGT that crashed in Holland/Belgium (can't remember exactly) a year or so ago.
Dear God. That must have hurt. If you read some of the posts on the OP's link, someone states that the owner wasn't driving at the time of the acciden't "can't get into it now...blahblah...complicated...". If that is true, then just what is it with CGT/Enzo owners loaning their cars out to get written off? And what is it with the mutton-heads borrowing them?
If you go out and buy a set of golf clubs which have been tested and perfected by Tiger Woods, you still aren't going to be able to shoot 65 round augusta. So because Walter Rohl tested and perfected the CGT................. As easy to drive as these cars are (by supercar standards)600+bhp will only forgive so much.
slippydiff said:
flemke said:
As Rohrl himself said, this car has a very high limit, but if you cross the limit, you won't bring it back.
And he should know, (I beleive he's parked at least two in the barriers at "interesting" speeds ?)
IINM, on one occasion he had a holiday in Adenau Hospital.
flemke said:
slippydiff said:
flemke said:
As Rohrl himself said, this car has a very high limit, but if you cross the limit, you won't bring it back.
And he should know, (I beleive he's parked at least two in the barriers at "interesting" speeds ?)
IINM, on one occasion he had a holiday in Adenau Hospital.
Even the Monte meister
has off days.....................slippydiff said:
flemke said:
slippydiff said:
flemke said:
As Rohrl himself said, this car has a very high limit, but if you cross the limit, you won't bring it back.
And he should know, (I beleive he's parked at least two in the barriers at "interesting" speeds ?)
IINM, on one occasion he had a holiday in Adenau Hospital.
Even the Monte meister
has off days.....................Supposedly:
Upon his release from hospital, he went straight back to Stuttgart, went to Wedekind and told him that either Wedekind must change the team who were responsible for developing the suspension, and replace them with X and Y from Motorsport, or he, WR, would not allow P. to use his name in association with the car.
Or so the story goes.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff