'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Boshly said:
Do you not think there was also a benefit to Mr Piper for lending his car to appear in the article?
Not really, no. It was/is an exceptional car the value of which could only be truly determined by auction. I understand it was valued at 1.25 mill and a magazine article would make no difference to that whatsoever. Ok Im still stumped... Hales drives the car and then there is this massive amount of damage from an over rev after he has driven a few laps. His defence is that the gearbox had an issue and jumped out.
Question:
1) If the gearbox had an issue why not radio it in to mechanic (assuming there was some type of pit crew there).
2) Why carry on driving it enough for the engine to blow with an issue like that.
3) If Hales is experienced then he would know that the issue with the gearbox he diagnosed could cause an over rev, yet he carried on.
Strange.
Question:
1) If the gearbox had an issue why not radio it in to mechanic (assuming there was some type of pit crew there).
2) Why carry on driving it enough for the engine to blow with an issue like that.
3) If Hales is experienced then he would know that the issue with the gearbox he diagnosed could cause an over rev, yet he carried on.
Strange.
Boshly said:
Because its not always as simple as that. A £20k bill to some would be devastating, to others it would be like you or I dropping £100. As such a lot depends on the exact circumstances.
You seem to be ignoring the part where if he can't afford to replace it, he shouldn't play with it. I've lived my life to that rule, from cars to things as simple as pool cues. Offered the use of and declined because I couldn't afford to replace the item in question if it broke whilst I was using it.heebeegeetee said:
Not really, no. It was/is an exceptional car the value of which could only be truly determined by auction. I understand it was valued at 1.25 mill and a magazine article would make no difference to that whatsoever.
Apart from the article being a large (free) advertising feature in the magazine?The damage was about 4% of the sale value of the car. I bet the commission on the sale was more than that!
Imagine you spent that much money on the car, the first time you drove it and the engine puts a leg out of bed, you would be pretty peeved. I would expect the engine and box to be in excellent condition - if not rebuilt as a matter of course, at least a refresh prior to sale.
Not to say that either the car was up for sale at the point of the test or indeed the owner was aware the engine was a little loose and chances were it could let go.
I would imagine the sales brochure would have highlighted the rebuild as a positive point rather than a negative "it blew up last time out"...
Du1point8 said:
Ok Im still stumped... Hales drives the car and then there is this massive amount of damage from an over rev after he has driven a few laps. His defence is that the gearbox had an issue and jumped out.
Question:
1) If the gearbox had an issue why not radio it in to mechanic (assuming there was some type of pit crew there).
2) Why carry on driving it enough for the engine to blow with an issue like that.
3) If Hales is experienced then he would know that the issue with the gearbox he diagnosed could cause an over rev, yet he carried on.
Strange.
Maybe it only happened on the one occasion of the blow-up? Question:
1) If the gearbox had an issue why not radio it in to mechanic (assuming there was some type of pit crew there).
2) Why carry on driving it enough for the engine to blow with an issue like that.
3) If Hales is experienced then he would know that the issue with the gearbox he diagnosed could cause an over rev, yet he carried on.
Strange.
Maybe it was acknowledged that the box was a little, shall we say, fussy - as such a machine may well be. In this case, what they are arguing about now is where the line is drawn for what the driver should work his way round and what the owner should accept the risks of?
Carfolio said:
Boshly said:
Because its not always as simple as that. A £20k bill to some would be devastating, to others it would be like you or I dropping £100. As such a lot depends on the exact circumstances.
You seem to be ignoring the part where if he can't afford to replace it, he shouldn't play with it. I've lived my life to that rule, from cars to things as simple as pool cues. Offered the use of and declined because I couldn't afford to replace the item in question if it broke whilst I was using it.What's in it for the owners? That varies, could be the love of seeing the car being used as intended, they might like the prestige of being an "owner" or it might be an investment (results can have a very big influence on values); either way it's going to be pretty rare that an owner doesn't understand that his driver almost always lacks the deep pockets required to own and repair such a car and so any bills are down to him.
This case is trickier than most as the car was requested (presumably) for the article and the benefit to the owner is less certain. Nevertheless, if in doubt I would have thought that the simplest position would be to say that the driver is responsible for crashes and the owner for mechanical failures unless there is very clear proof to the contrary.
Edited by Steve H on Saturday 19th January 09:58
Carfolio said:
You seem to be ignoring the part where if he can't afford to replace it, he shouldn't play with it.
While as a rule of thumb this has the advantage of no ambiguity, it ignores the rather important concept of culpability which is why it cannot be applied universally.If you were to test drive a car and the head gasket blew while you are driving, would you pay the owner or dealer to fix it?
Carfolio said:
The Crack Fox said:
"You bend it, you mend it" - seems perfectly fair to me, it's a famously expensive racing car, if Hales had any concerns about not being able to afford it going 'pop' then perhaps he shouldn't have driven it.
I'm not sure why this isn't the 100% consensus view. It's a perfectly reasonable and fair stance to have.Steve H said:
In a world where people own million pound racing cars but lack the talent, health or desire to drive them to their full potential (no implication to the owner in this case), it is not in any way unusual to see up and coming or well established drivers being offered drives in cars and events that they could never afford to fund, buy or repair without patronage. Without this, the cars would not get used and young drivers would not have the chance to gain the experience they need to progress.
Insurance?Edit: To clarify that cryptic response.
Owner: hey driver. would you like a go in my lovely old whizzbang mark 7, worth more than you'll ever see in your life even if you lived it 5 times?
Driver: Sure old timer, pass the keys.
versus
Owner: hey driver. would you like a go in my lovely old whizzbang mark 7, worth more than you'll ever see in your life even if you lived it 5 times?
Driver: Sure I'd love to but are you covered if something goes wibble whilst I'm at the helm? If not I'll pass, thanks all the same.
and if the owner answers in the affirmative or assures the potential driver that it's all part of the game, fine, and if the driver goes ahead in the absence of such assurances it's on his head alone.
Edited by Carfolio on Saturday 19th January 10:12
heebeegeetee said:
Boshly said:
Do you not think there was also a benefit to Mr Piper for lending his car to appear in the article?
Not really, no. It was/is an exceptional car the value of which could only be truly determined by auction. I understand it was valued at 1.25 mill and a magazine article would make no difference to that whatsoever. However, you have also selectively quoted me, or at least selectively picked up on one aspect. 'Benefit' is more than just financial, read the whole post.
Carfolio said:
Boshly said:
Because its not always as simple as that. A £20k bill to some would be devastating, to others it would be like you or I dropping £100. As such a lot depends on the exact circumstances.
You seem to be ignoring the part where if he can't afford to replace it, he shouldn't play with it. I've lived my life to that rule, from cars to things as simple as pool cues. Offered the use of and declined because I couldn't afford to replace the item in question if it broke whilst I was using it.Ok think about this. What if I wanted you to play with it? For my own reasons. That's then different.
I appreciate that those may be the rules you lead your life by, but it's a bit of a sad situation where you can't enjoy something owned by a friend/colleague because you couldn't afford it (but the friend/colleague could). Would you not allow a friend to buy you lunch at a restaurant you wouldn't/couldn't afford?
One of the joys of owning a nice car, for me, is to share that with fellow enthusiasts. From talking about it, to sitting in it and even driving it. I have let at least 6 people (trying to remember off the top of my head) who I don't necessarily know that well, drive my cars round a track, and more on the road. The chances of an accident happening were small, and I was willing to take the risk. One person could easily have afforded replacing the car in question and he volunteered that he would be responsible for all risks. Two could have afforded it as well as I could, though we didn't discuss, so my risk. The others I would not have expected to pay a bean. I am of course reasonably selective of who I offer this to (and have turned down requests) but I make the decision and I take the risk.
I re-iterate, it's circumstances.
It really is so simple this, the owner has control, the owner has the choice whether or not to enter into the risk, the owner knows the risk balanced against the value of the car, and the exposure he might be wishing for. in an extreme example, a vexatious owner could potentially know that the engine is at 99% of safe running time before rebuild, and could potentially go to 101% with the guest at the wheel, how convenient.
The owner must take responsibility for his own actions. at any time he could have said no.
The owner must take responsibility for his own actions. at any time he could have said no.
A sad situation, where as usual only the lawyers will win. I agree with the previous poster that in an ideal world the cost of repair should be split 50/50, but we don't live in an ideal world and people don't always behave rationaly.
If I were to lend out my £1 million car I would fit a go-pro camera or similar to record events from the cockpit. Conversely if I were to borrow a £1 million car I would use a go- pro to record the drive for posterity and as insurance in case things went bad.
Off topic slightly I am surprised how many drivers think that an engine cannot be over-revved if a rev limiter is fitted to the ignition. Quite a few E36/46 M3 drivers who have experienced the "Money Shift" know this is untrue.
If I were to lend out my £1 million car I would fit a go-pro camera or similar to record events from the cockpit. Conversely if I were to borrow a £1 million car I would use a go- pro to record the drive for posterity and as insurance in case things went bad.
Off topic slightly I am surprised how many drivers think that an engine cannot be over-revved if a rev limiter is fitted to the ignition. Quite a few E36/46 M3 drivers who have experienced the "Money Shift" know this is untrue.
Any engine will over-rev if it is being rotated by the driven wheels at a speed higher than the engines design limit. There is also an acceptance among engineers that the'loose' over-rev this creates is the most likely to create breakages, as the enine is being dragged round by an outside force rather than under power. The Owner must take rsponsibility for that before handing the car over to a guest.
Boshly said:
I know this has been addressed by another but "an exceptional car" doesn't just stop there, the more exposure the better. These cars are usually accompanied by a file full of clippings etc.
However, you have also selectively quoted me, or at least selectively picked up on one aspect. 'Benefit' is more than just financial, read the whole post.
We'll have to agree to differ. i selectively quoted because that was the only part of the post that interested me, and you've asked me specifically a question and I gave my answer.However, you have also selectively quoted me, or at least selectively picked up on one aspect. 'Benefit' is more than just financial, read the whole post.
If i understand correctly, this car is a very important car with an immaculate history. The people in a position to buy it know it's history and it's value. The rest of us who could never buy it can enjoy reading about the car in magazines. This isn't a car like those that fill the car mags; yes, low/lower value cars can have their value enhanced by appearing in car mags but the important 'pieces' derive their value from what they are and what their history is.
This may sound somewhat naive but surely there is president in the horse racing world. The horse, often even more valuable than the car in this case, is owned by either an individual or a syndicate but raced by a jockey. Injury and death of horses has occured and the jockey has been shown to be to blame yet I am unaware of any jockeys being expected to remunerate the owner(s) or been sued.
I have since learnt to add the words THE FOLLOWING IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Chaps; thanks for the kind words but if I may, I'd like to proffer a completely factual account. I have hardly ever posted on a forum but in this case, sadly, I am in a position to know.
The test was a joint effort between two publishers (Octane/Dennis, and 911 and Porsche World/Auto Italia/CHP).
The 917 part of the test was a commercial arrangement and the fee was split between Octane Magazine and the rest. The other car in the test (Nick Mason's Ferrari 512S) was provided on the understanding that out of pocket costs were covered.
There was an agreement between Piper and Hales as to the terms of the hire. Piper knew that crash damage was covered by insurance which was provided by Octane Magazine but there was a very specific discussion about damage to the engine in the case of an overrev. The Porsche 917 has a very tricky gearshift which caught out top level drivers like Vic Elford and Jo Siffert. This is well documented in the history books
Hales regularly gets to drive cars like this because his reputation is well established and his experience with different cars is extensive. He is not however, and never has been in a position to indemnify any damage. This is well established custom and practice in the historic race car world.
Piper agreed that the mechanicals would not be covered.
This was an agreement between gentlemen and was not written down. Piper chose not to remember the conversation in court.
On the day, the 917's gearshift was particularly difficult, especially shifting into third. Hales came straight into the pits to report this to Piper's mechanic. Hales was told that this was a matter of adjustment (the implication being that they didn't have the time or the inclination to make that adjustment) and please to be careful.
Hales found that if he held his hand on the gearlever and released the clutch, the overrun would tell him if and when the gear was engaged. Sometimes it wouldn't and he had to go back to second and try the shift again at lower revs. Not an ideal way to get the feel of a 917.
Later in the day, Hales short-shifted from second to third to make sure the gear was changed before the next corner but didn't hold his hand on the lever long enough. The car drove on the synchromesh for a fraction of a second then spat the gear out and the engine overrevved.
In court, the mechanic chose not to remember the visit to the pits or the conversation that took place there.
This is all a matter of public record, as is an invoice which was produced in evidence, bearing the date February 30th. The issuer of the invoice also misspelt his own name.
Piper spent £63,000 in lawyer's fees and was predictably successful in the High Court.
Hales made some very silly mistakes since the event, and was badly served by less expensive lawyers.
Octane Magazine made a financial offer of settlement. This was declined and there was no further discussion.
Piper has since sold the car for £1.3million which is entirely his prerogative.
Hales is now facing bankruptcy and likely to lose his house.
Chaps; thanks for the kind words but if I may, I'd like to proffer a completely factual account. I have hardly ever posted on a forum but in this case, sadly, I am in a position to know.
The test was a joint effort between two publishers (Octane/Dennis, and 911 and Porsche World/Auto Italia/CHP).
The 917 part of the test was a commercial arrangement and the fee was split between Octane Magazine and the rest. The other car in the test (Nick Mason's Ferrari 512S) was provided on the understanding that out of pocket costs were covered.
There was an agreement between Piper and Hales as to the terms of the hire. Piper knew that crash damage was covered by insurance which was provided by Octane Magazine but there was a very specific discussion about damage to the engine in the case of an overrev. The Porsche 917 has a very tricky gearshift which caught out top level drivers like Vic Elford and Jo Siffert. This is well documented in the history books
Hales regularly gets to drive cars like this because his reputation is well established and his experience with different cars is extensive. He is not however, and never has been in a position to indemnify any damage. This is well established custom and practice in the historic race car world.
Piper agreed that the mechanicals would not be covered.
This was an agreement between gentlemen and was not written down. Piper chose not to remember the conversation in court.
On the day, the 917's gearshift was particularly difficult, especially shifting into third. Hales came straight into the pits to report this to Piper's mechanic. Hales was told that this was a matter of adjustment (the implication being that they didn't have the time or the inclination to make that adjustment) and please to be careful.
Hales found that if he held his hand on the gearlever and released the clutch, the overrun would tell him if and when the gear was engaged. Sometimes it wouldn't and he had to go back to second and try the shift again at lower revs. Not an ideal way to get the feel of a 917.
Later in the day, Hales short-shifted from second to third to make sure the gear was changed before the next corner but didn't hold his hand on the lever long enough. The car drove on the synchromesh for a fraction of a second then spat the gear out and the engine overrevved.
In court, the mechanic chose not to remember the visit to the pits or the conversation that took place there.
This is all a matter of public record, as is an invoice which was produced in evidence, bearing the date February 30th. The issuer of the invoice also misspelt his own name.
Piper spent £63,000 in lawyer's fees and was predictably successful in the High Court.
Hales made some very silly mistakes since the event, and was badly served by less expensive lawyers.
Octane Magazine made a financial offer of settlement. This was declined and there was no further discussion.
Piper has since sold the car for £1.3million which is entirely his prerogative.
Hales is now facing bankruptcy and likely to lose his house.
Edited by andmark4389 on Saturday 19th January 11:42
Edited by andmark4389 on Saturday 19th January 11:54
andmark4389 said:
I have since learnt to add the words THE FOLLOWING IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Chaps; thanks for the kind words but if I may, I'd like to proffer a completely factual account. I have hardly ever posted on a forum but in this case, sadly, I am in a position to know.
The test was a joint effort between two publishers (Octane/Dennis, and 911 and Porsche World/Auto Italia/CHP).
The 917 part of the test was a commercial arrangement and the fee was split between Octane Magazine and the rest. The other car in the test (Nick Mason's Ferrari 512S) was provided on the understanding that out of pocket costs were covered.
There was an agreement between Piper and Hales as to the terms of the hire. Piper knew that crash damage was covered by insurance which was provided by Octane Magazine but there was a very specific discussion about damage to the engine in the case of an overrev. The Porsche 917 has a very tricky gearshift which caught out top level drivers like Vic Elford and Jo Siffert. This is well documented in the history books
Hales regularly gets to drive cars like this because his reputation is well established and his experience with different cars is extensive. He is not however, and never has been in a position to indemnify any damage. This is well established custom and practice in the historic race car world.
Piper agreed that the mechanicals would not be covered.
This was an agreement between gentlemen and was not written down. Piper chose not to remember the conversation in court.
On the day, the 917's gearshift was particularly difficult, especially shifting into third. Hales came straight into the pits to report this to Piper's mechanic. Hales was told that this was a matter of adjustment (the implication being that they didn't have the time or the inclination to make that adjustment) and please to be careful.
Hales found that if he held his hand on the gearlever and released the clutch, the overrun would tell him if and when the gear was engaged. Sometimes it wouldn't and he had to go back to second and try the shift again at lower revs. Not an ideal way to get the feel of a 917.
Later in the day, Hales short-shifted from second to third to make sure the gear was changed before the next corner but didn't hold his hand on the lever long enough. The car drove on the synchromesh for a fraction of a second then spat the gear out and the engine overrevved.
In court, the mechanic chose not to remember the visit to the pits or the conversation that took place there.
This is all a matter of public record, as is an invoice which was produced in evidence, bearing the date February 30th.
Piper spent £63,000 in lawyer's fees and was predictably successful in the High Court.
Hales made some very silly mistakes since the event, and was badly served by less expensive lawyers.
Piper has since sold the car for £1.3million which is entirely his prerogative.
Hales is now facing bankruptcy and likely to lose his house.
Thanks for posting. Chaps; thanks for the kind words but if I may, I'd like to proffer a completely factual account. I have hardly ever posted on a forum but in this case, sadly, I am in a position to know.
The test was a joint effort between two publishers (Octane/Dennis, and 911 and Porsche World/Auto Italia/CHP).
The 917 part of the test was a commercial arrangement and the fee was split between Octane Magazine and the rest. The other car in the test (Nick Mason's Ferrari 512S) was provided on the understanding that out of pocket costs were covered.
There was an agreement between Piper and Hales as to the terms of the hire. Piper knew that crash damage was covered by insurance which was provided by Octane Magazine but there was a very specific discussion about damage to the engine in the case of an overrev. The Porsche 917 has a very tricky gearshift which caught out top level drivers like Vic Elford and Jo Siffert. This is well documented in the history books
Hales regularly gets to drive cars like this because his reputation is well established and his experience with different cars is extensive. He is not however, and never has been in a position to indemnify any damage. This is well established custom and practice in the historic race car world.
Piper agreed that the mechanicals would not be covered.
This was an agreement between gentlemen and was not written down. Piper chose not to remember the conversation in court.
On the day, the 917's gearshift was particularly difficult, especially shifting into third. Hales came straight into the pits to report this to Piper's mechanic. Hales was told that this was a matter of adjustment (the implication being that they didn't have the time or the inclination to make that adjustment) and please to be careful.
Hales found that if he held his hand on the gearlever and released the clutch, the overrun would tell him if and when the gear was engaged. Sometimes it wouldn't and he had to go back to second and try the shift again at lower revs. Not an ideal way to get the feel of a 917.
Later in the day, Hales short-shifted from second to third to make sure the gear was changed before the next corner but didn't hold his hand on the lever long enough. The car drove on the synchromesh for a fraction of a second then spat the gear out and the engine overrevved.
In court, the mechanic chose not to remember the visit to the pits or the conversation that took place there.
This is all a matter of public record, as is an invoice which was produced in evidence, bearing the date February 30th.
Piper spent £63,000 in lawyer's fees and was predictably successful in the High Court.
Hales made some very silly mistakes since the event, and was badly served by less expensive lawyers.
Piper has since sold the car for £1.3million which is entirely his prerogative.
Hales is now facing bankruptcy and likely to lose his house.
CampDavid said:
DonkeyApple said:
A sobering read and reminiscent of many past events.
Very much so. Hope it works out.SS7
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff