Mark Hales...

Author
Discussion

corporalsparrow

403 posts

181 months

Wednesday 26th June 2013
quotequote all
MG511 said:
Agree with that, having admitted breaking his car I don't see how they thought they could win against Piper, but maybe I'm being too simplistic.
You're not being simplistic at all.

1) Hales was asked if he was insured, he claimed he was. As it turns out he was but not in all circumstances, there were specific exclusions. Damage caused by driver error was one of them. Also mechanical breakdown was also not covered (this does beg the question about what was covered but that's a different argument).

2) Hales was explicitly told not to rev the car beyond 7,000rpm. The damage occurred at 8,200rpm.

3) Hales claimed it was not his fault but then admitted to the insurance company that it was.

4) The judge found Hales to be "a most unreliable witness whose evidence was creative, inconsistent, self-motivated and incredible".

5) The damage to the engine was valued at £40,000. The rest of the costs came from fighting the case.

These are the facts. None of them are disputed by Mark Hales. He may feel sore, but the he picked a fight when he was provably in the wrong. David Piper, as far as I can make out, has played it by the book. He seems to have done nothing except sue for a legitimate breach of contract, and then sue to reclaim his costs.

I'm struggling to see what this great wave of support for Mark Hales is based on.

shoestring7

6,138 posts

247 months

Wednesday 26th June 2013
quotequote all
Why the 7,000 limit?

In period the 917 produced max power at 8400, was limited to 8700 or 8800 and broke at 9200.


SS7

Rollcage

11,327 posts

193 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
shoestring7 said:
Why the 7,000 limit?

In period the 917 produced max power at 8400, was limited to 8700 or 8800 and broke at 9200.


SS7
To lessen risk?

Obviously it is a highly strung unit, but an 800 rpm window between max output and breaking, doesn't leave a lot of margin for error - as MH found.

corporalsparrow

403 posts

181 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
shoestring7 said:
Why the 7,000 limit?

In period the 917 produced max power at 8400, was limited to 8700 or 8800 and broke at 9200.


SS7
Presumably to protect the engine from over-reving. Whatever the reason that was a condition of the deal.

williamp

19,265 posts

274 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
Dont want to derail th hred, but can alder engine b pe rv-limited?? Maybe by mechaniclly stopping the throttles opening all e way or smething?

Flying Toilet

3,621 posts

212 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
Yse thy can.

marshalla

15,902 posts

202 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
williamp said:
Dont want to derail th hred, but can alder engine b pe rv-limited?? Maybe by mechaniclly stopping the throttles opening all e way or smething?
Yes, but by putting a limiter across the coil to stop it sparking above the limit : http://www.msdignition.com/Products/RPM/Timing_Con...

heebeegeetee

28,776 posts

249 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
Rollcage said:
shoestring7 said:
Why the 7,000 limit?

In period the 917 produced max power at 8400, was limited to 8700 or 8800 and broke at 9200.


SS7
To lessen risk?

Obviously it is a highly strung unit, but an 800 rpm window between max output and breaking, doesn't leave a lot of margin for error - as MH found.
I'm not sure it is too highly strung a unit. In it's day it broke at around 9200, I would have thought the limits are higher now with modern production techniques, but either way there seems no evidence that Hales went anywhere near those limits.

Obviously Mr Piper is fully within his rights to set what ever limit he likes, but that doesn't mean to say that breaking an arbitrary limit causes the engine to explode.

freedman

5,419 posts

208 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Obviously Mr Piper is fully within his rights to set what ever limit he likes, but that doesn't mean to say that breaking an arbitrary limit causes the engine to explode.
No, it doesnt, however on this occasion the engine broke because it was over revved as a result of a missed gearshift

Those are the stated facts, and as far as I can ascertain, no one is disputing them

heebeegeetee

28,776 posts

249 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
freedman said:
No, it doesnt, however on this occasion the engine broke because it was over revved as a result of a missed gearshift

Those are the stated facts, and as far as I can ascertain, no one is disputing them
It's a strange case then, because every time you see a 917 racing you'll be watching it operating at over 8200 rpm. They did in their day and they do now.

I can not understand why this one car would break at a rate less than which it develops maximum power. I'm not even sure how operating it at a speed under which it develops max power can be described as over-revved, other than it exceeded an arbitrarily set limit which does not seem to accord to any good reason as far as I can see.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

245 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
It's a strange case then, because every time you see a 917 racing you'll be watching it operating at over 8200 rpm. They did in their day and they do now.

I can not understand why this one car would break at a rate less than which it develops maximum power. I'm not even sure how operating it at a speed under which it develops max power can be described as over-revved, other than it exceeded an arbitrarily set limit which does not seem to accord to any good reason as far as I can see.
From what I remember of the court transcript said that the engine over revved to at least 8200 rpm, so could have been much more momentarily. I don't believe that the cause of engine failure was contested, it is generally accepted that the failure was the result of over revving.

The point of the set rev limit was that the car was loaned for a low risk magazine test, not an out and out test of performance much less a race, so there was no need for anything other than a very conservative limit.

LaurasOtherHalf

21,429 posts

197 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
It's a strange case then, because every time you see a 917 racing you'll be watching it operating at over 8200 rpm. They did in their day and they do now.

I can not understand why this one car would break at a rate less than which it develops maximum power. I'm not even sure how operating it at a speed under which it develops max power can be described as over-revved, other than it exceeded an arbitrarily set limit which does not seem to accord to any good reason as far as I can see.
It's completely irrelevant to the case but you don't know that all 917s you see at historic meetings are running to their in period specs. Just because Porsche as a factory effort with all their resources could run engines for 24hrs at high stress levels doesn't mean the guys running them on a weekend racing ticket want to do the same.


7/11

217 posts

211 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
I cant see why this is rumbling on covering the same old ground.
The crime has happened, the court has ruled and monies need to be paid.
End of story.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

218 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
Indeed.

As for the revving issue- it doesn't necessary follow that it needs to be evidence as to why the car broke. It is evidence that Hales was either purposefully or otherwise negligent, to support the notion that driver error was the likely cause. If Hales can overrev, despite being told not to, he is either not to be trusted or is not always competent, or both.

heebeegeetee

28,776 posts

249 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
LaurasOtherHalf said:
It's completely irrelevant to the case but you don't know that all 917s you see at historic meetings are running to their in period specs. Just because Porsche as a factory effort with all their resources could run engines for 24hrs at high stress levels doesn't mean the guys running them on a weekend racing ticket want to do the same.
I agree it's irrelevant, it's just a point that interests me.

I'm not sure there's anywhere that current owners could race their cars for more than 6 hours. I also think that the very wealthy people of today have more wealth than some countries, never mid a relatively young business back in the 60's 70's.

Today historic cars run faster than they did in the period when driven by highly talented drivers. I'd be very surprised if a current 917 engine isn't more powerful and reliable than in the day, but even in the day they didn't go pop because they'd done 8,200 rpm.

heebeegeetee

28,776 posts

249 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
If Hales can overrev, despite being told not to, he is either not to be trusted or is not always competent, or both.
That may be the case, but he is still one of the very best drivers out there, and possibly the best who can drive and write well about it.

If hales can over-rev, then so can absolutely every one else, imo.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

245 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
...but even in the day they didn't go pop because they'd done 8,200 rpm.
At least 8200rpm according to the court judgement. We don't know how fast the engine was spinning when the damage was done because that wasn't relevent to the case, provided it was in excess of the agreed limit of 7000rpm.

LaurasOtherHalf

21,429 posts

197 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
It's completely irrelevant to the case but you don't know that all 917s you see at historic meetings are running to their in period specs. Just because Porsche as a factory effort with all their resources could run engines for 24hrs at high stress levels doesn't mean the guys running them on a weekend racing ticket want to do the same.
I agree it's irrelevant, it's just a point that interests me.

I'm not sure there's anywhere that current owners could race their cars for more than 6 hours. I also think that the very wealthy people of today have more wealth than some countries, never mid a relatively young business back in the 60's 70's.

Today historic cars run faster than they did in the period when driven by highly talented drivers. I'd be very surprised if a current 917 engine isn't more powerful and reliable than in the day, but even in the day they didn't go pop because they'd done 8,200 rpm.
At least we agree these points are irrelevant but the specifics were all covered in one of the original threads on the subject. Off the top of my head I ant quite remember the specifics (though I could check for reference when home) but even back in the day the difference in engine speed between peak power & destruction was very thin.

Read something like peak power 8400, engines destroy at 8500! Also, again my memory might be letting me down but I'm almost certain that "buzzing" an engine to over 8000 revs would blow it, in order to reach peak power they had to inch up to the limit in top gear in order to get full speed.

Iirc there are quite a few interviews that testify to this & most drivers could not sustain such fine tolerances over 12-24 hours, hence the large numbers of cars that never saw the flag.

So taking this into consideration & I'm sure you can imagine that cars built for classic racing/demo runs such as they are now would not be so highly tested. Why would they? The future of your company isn't resting on winning! Yes I know they'd be expected to be more reliable but I'm sure part if the reason for them being so is that they won't be expected to touch 8400rpm whilst doing 240mph down te mulsanne!

I go back to the irrelavence of this point, MH had been told not to exceed a set rev limit & no matter how low that limit was set, he didn't stick to it & the engine let go. Simple as.


freedman

5,419 posts

208 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Today historic cars run faster than they did in the period when driven by highly talented drivers.
O/T Some do of course, however

I dont recall any 917, 935 or even 956/962 running faster than they did back in the day, anywhere

shoestring7

6,138 posts

247 months

Thursday 27th June 2013
quotequote all
LaurasOtherHalf said:
my memory might be letting me down
It is.

If the engine in Piper's car was in track worthy condition, then it would take more than 9,000rpm for damage to the valve train, and I would expect to be reading that the over-rev indicted by the tell-tale was "at least 9,XXX rpm'.

If the engine really wasn't safe at more than 7,000 and a bit, then it seems clear it either had a pre-existing problem or was overdue a rebuild.

SS7