13yr old killed in F50

Author
Discussion

Gameface

16,565 posts

78 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
JJ England said:
Gameface said:
So you think it was a car fault as he's saying in court?
Yes. I do.
Ok.

You say you're familiar with the track and have been there etc. Do you know the defendant?

broganski

42 posts

193 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
It has been reported that the defendant himself owned the car - is this a certainty?

FurtiveFreddy

8,577 posts

238 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
broganski said:
It has been reported that the defendant himself owned the car - is this a certainty?
Where was that reported?

TTmonkey

20,911 posts

248 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
broganski said:
It has been reported that the defendant himself owned the car - is this a certainty?
I don't know where you got that from but its not true.

broganski

42 posts

193 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
broganski said:
It has been reported that the defendant himself owned the car - is this a certainty?
I don't know where you got that from but its not true.
"A 39-year-old Walton man caused a teenager's death by losing control of his high-performance Ferrari, a court has heard" excerpt from https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/walto...


TTmonkey

20,911 posts

248 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
broganski said:
TTmonkey said:
broganski said:
It has been reported that the defendant himself owned the car - is this a certainty?
I don't know where you got that from but its not true.
"A 39-year-old Walton man caused a teenager's death by losing control of his high-performance Ferrari, a court has heard" excerpt from https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/walto...
Just bad reporting. The guy is not rich, owns a large shed for storing cars, not his own cars.

Kewy

1,462 posts

95 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
Nice to see a varied response to this story for once as opposed to the usual PH witch hunt, albeit a few inappropriate comments.

I think the thing for me is what he did was absolutely riddled with stupidity, and carelessness (possible spur of the moment), but not malice. For that reason I would agree that a prison sentence is not going to do a whole lot other than probably ruin a few more lives.

Mirroring what many others have said, the guy has got to live with this for the rest of his life. Thats worse than any incarceration.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

127 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
broganski said:
TTmonkey said:
broganski said:
It has been reported that the defendant himself owned the car - is this a certainty?
I don't know where you got that from but its not true.
"A 39-year-old Walton man caused a teenager's death by losing control of his high-performance Ferrari, a court has heard" excerpt from https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/walto...
"his car" as in "the car he was driving".

Later in that very article...
Local rag said:
(The prosecution barrister) explained that the owner of the car had spent £50,000 servicing and refurbishing the vehicle with the intention of selling it.

NRS

22,213 posts

202 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
JJ England said:
Yes. I do.
What a jury will make of it I do not know.
What is the probability of a car doing this in general? Very very low I'd guess, or we'd have heard more reports of it. What is the probability of a car doing this, AND been fine again in the post-crash inspection? A lot lower again. I'd guess probably less than 0.0001%. Compare that with the probability of a person wanting to give the boy a quick thrill. I think he has to be found guilty unless something else comes to light during the case.

broganski said:
"A 39-year-old Walton man caused a teenager's death by losing control of his high-performance Ferrari, a court has heard" excerpt from https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/walto...
Crap reporting.

JJ England

48 posts

164 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
Gameface said:
Ok.

You say you're familiar with the track and have been there etc. Do you know the defendant?
No.

TTmonkey

20,911 posts

248 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
NRS said:
What is the probability of a car doing this in general? Very very low I'd guess, or we'd have heard more reports of it. What is the probability of a car doing this, AND been fine again in the post-crash inspection? A lot lower again. I'd guess probably less than 0.0001%. Compare that with the probability of a person wanting to give the boy a quick thrill. I think he has to be found guilty unless something else comes to light during the case.
I think he will be found not guilty due to lack of evidence that he did something wrong. Unless there's a witness that says he roared of from the yard with the tyres screeching long before he reached the crash scene,. the jury could say "well what if the car has a fault that only occurred at that time?"

He will however have to be found guilty of not insuring the belts were applied. What level of punishment he will get when I child has died because of this I don't know.

I'm surprised there no security camera footage. If I was storing million quid cars down at this farm I'd want all angles covered by cameras.

FurtiveFreddy

8,577 posts

238 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
I'm surprised there no security camera footage. If I was storing million quid cars down at this farm I'd want all angles covered by cameras.
There was footage from outside the unit, but where the accident happened is an access road, so why have cameras there?

The unit is (was until this case) quite anonymous with no signage from the road or on the unit itself, so they obviously didn't consider a need for more cameras than they already had at the unit itself.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

262 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
I think he will be found not guilty due to lack of evidence that he did something wrong. Unless there's a witness that says he roared of from the yard with the tyres screeching long before he reached the crash scene,. the jury could say "well what if the car has a fault that only occurred at that time?"

A single vehicle accident is pretty good evidence that he did something 'wrong' within the definition of careless driving, especially when no fault was found with the car. If there was evidence of screeching tyres etc it would probably have been a dangerous driving charge.

NRS

22,213 posts

202 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
I think he will be found not guilty due to lack of evidence that he did something wrong. Unless there's a witness that says he roared of from the yard with the tyres screeching long before he reached the crash scene,. the jury could say "well what if the car has a fault that only occurred at that time?"

He will however have to be found guilty of not insuring the belts were applied. What level of punishment he will get when I child has died because of this I don't know.

I'm surprised there no security camera footage. If I was storing million quid cars down at this farm I'd want all angles covered by cameras.
On the description it seems to be there was a sound that made the people in the yard look at around 3 seconds before the car was launched into the air (as shown by lights captured on the CCTV footage). That to me would suggest revving (foot to the floor/the car accelerating due to mechanical fault) and/or tyres skreeching if he entered a slide. I'd guess if there was tyre marks from sliding the rear these would have been mentioned before though.

The thing likelihood of a car taking off for no reason in general is tiny - even more so when inspected afterwards. Good on him taking the person out a ride - I had it when younger and loved it. But it does seem like he got it wrong, and that's why you need to do it in a safe place - not a narrow lane. Or accept responsibility of careless driving. (Again, assuming no new info later or that is not reported yet).

TTmonkey

20,911 posts

248 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
Independent Expert defence witness claims half the cylinders of the F50 were not firing prior to the crash, and that it was likely that the other six fired into life launching the car uncontrollably.....

Independent defence opinion was refuted by actual Ferrari expert from Maranello, who said there was no physical evidence that supports what the independent expert has said.

Is the F50 designed to run on half the cyclinders? I know some cars are. Is it possible for it to run on half cyclinders? No if it is, would a driver notice?

Gameface

16,565 posts

78 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
I'd be interested in this independent experts credentials.

number 46

1,019 posts

249 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
Independent Expert defence witness claims half the cylinders of the F50 were not firing prior to the crash, and that it was likely that the other six fired into life launching the car uncontrollably.....

Independent defence opinion was refuted by actual Ferrari expert from Maranello, who said there was no physical evidence that supports what the independent expert has said.

Is the F50 designed to run on half the cyclinders? I know some cars are. Is it possible for it to run on half cyclinders? No if it is, would a driver notice?
What does he base that claim on? That wasn't in the earlier expert witness link. So it was running on one bank when he left the unit, then the other bank worked just as he was accelerating prior to the crash ....Hmmme.... It would have sounded pretty rough if it was only running on one bank, surely he would have stopped to see what was wrong??
It may well run on one bank only, my 456 actually has two ecu's, one for each bank, but it will also run on just one ecu if the other is faulty. The original alarm in my car was faulty and would only stop one bank from running, this meant that you could actually start the car and it would run on 6 cylinders, it sounded very rough though, so I doubt very much that he would drive off with the F50 just running on only 6 cylinders.

SJK

119 posts

109 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
Gameface said:
I'd be interested in this independent experts credentials.
Aldo Riti is the defence expert. Pretty knowledgeable and recommended in the ferrari world.

Ructions

4,705 posts

122 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
Gameface said:
I'd be interested in this independent experts credentials.
An 'expert' will say whatever furthers the aims of whichever side is paying him.

Dr Interceptor

7,801 posts

197 months

Monday 26th February 2018
quotequote all
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.