Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
williamp said:
Strip everything away, he was asked to keep to an agreement and he didn't. This is the result. I wouldn't lend anyone my car if they brought it back saying "yeah mate, I know you asked me to keep the limit down, but for years ago the semi-Works team used more, so I ignored you and went with them.
That isn't what happened and you know it, so why waste your time? What happened on the day was that one of the very most experienced and skilled members of the historic racing community made a mistake when at the wheel of a car that is known to be tricky to handle. GreigM said:
What don't you "buy" about it? When an engine is being revved up to a point via combustion it is a relatively gentle acceleration of the moving parts up to that point. Its also a case where the engine is driving the wheels and the rest of the mass of the car. When it is mis-shifted the engine is violently accelerated up to the same rev point, and the mass of the car is now driving the engine. The forces are substantially different.
To some extent the revs reached are irrelevant - you can easily break an engine dumping the clutch from a standstill while keeping everything substantially under the rev "limit".
When you miss an up shift, (ie go into neutral under power) the engine is not violently accelerated to the same rev point at all, it just revs up faster than if it's driving the car, it's perfectly survivable if you don't go beyond its mechanical rev limit. The problem with missed up shifts is the rev limiter is designed to cope with acceleration rates you see whilst in gear and driving the car, so the limiter doesn't react fast enough and you overspeed the engine beyond the limiter set point and potentially into the danger zone for engine speed. This is more so the case on old technology rev limiters, new tech is far better at handling this scenario.To some extent the revs reached are irrelevant - you can easily break an engine dumping the clutch from a standstill while keeping everything substantially under the rev "limit".
There is no driving of the engine by the car when you miss an up shift, the transmition is disengaged because you are in neutral.
The only time you have driving of the engine by the car, is when you select a lower gear too soon or you shift down a gear when you should be going up, i.e you went for 5th and got 3rd. That is the most damaging failure because you do accelerate the engine extremely rapidly, which tends to kill the rods, rod bolts and often the valvetrain components, even if the pistons and valves don't hit.
Also, you wont break the engine by dumping the clutch at a standstill, you may break the clutch, gearbox or other drivetrain components with the shock loading.
Edited by johnfelstead on Thursday 27th June 23:57
thunderbelmont said:
.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
IF he complained about the gearshift (and there wasnt just a coversation about it being somewhat recalcitrant as per the article) why did he continue to drive the car? After all he is a hugely experience driver, and used to similar machinery. If it was the poorly prepared piece of junk you infer he simply wouldnt have driven it, would he. Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
8200? again no one has ever stipulated what the engine was actually revved to as far as I have seen
They 'adjusted'? Hales attempted to claim from his insurers after admitting the damage was caused by his own error. Two choices, he's either telling the truth or he was attempting to make a spurious claim via the insurers. You cant have it both ways
The court case was instigated because Hales refused to pay up after admitting liability
The car is not a replica like an LMK or other manufacturers (not that it is any way relevant to the discussion) It is a car built from in the main genuine 917 parts, in some ways similar to the Kremer 917, though that has 80's period race provenence. Again even if it was made from Beetle bits it would be irrelevant to the case.
Mark Hales could have settled the bill for the original amount, but chose to go to court. The cost of the engine rebuild has never changed only the court costs, brought about by Hales decision to challenge Pipers claim in a court of law have tripled the amount required. There is only one person at fault for that, he had no chanec of winning the court case based on the available facts. The judgement is damning of Hales
What the car is or was worth is again completely irrelevant to the claim
thunderbelmont said:
Here is how I see this.
Mark drove the car as part of an article for magazine he was working for. THEY held the insurance - not Mark.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
Dear God...well you certainly get the prize for most rampant conspiracy theorist. Instead of opinion, why don't you look at the facts? The same facts that even Mark Hales has not objected to.Mark drove the car as part of an article for magazine he was working for. THEY held the insurance - not Mark.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
thunderbelmont said:
Here is how I see this.
....The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.....
Someone who changes their story is the definition of an unreliable witness. In a case like this where opposing parties have a differing version of events and without any expert witness testimony the judge had to make his decision based on which witnesses were the most credible.....The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.....
thunderbelmont said:
....And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K....
That is quite an assumption and an interesting negotiation technique. Using your rationale I could assess any work required to make good a historic car and then multiply that figure by a factor of ten and deduct that number from the value of the car. Or conversely as in this case I could apparently spend £40k on an engine overhaul and magically add £400k to the value of the car. Have you had much luck with your theory on this planet?Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K....
johnfelstead said:
When you miss an up shift, (ie go into neutral under power) the engine is not violently accelerated to the same rev point at all, it just revs up faster than if it's driving the car, it's perfectly survivable if you don't go beyond its mechanical rev limit. The problem with missed up shifts is the rev limiter is designed to cope with acceleration rates you see whilst in gear and driving the car, so the limiter doesn't react fast enough and you overspeed the engine beyond the limiter set point and potentially into the danger zone for engine speed. This is more so the case on old technology rev limiters, new tech is far better at handling this scenario.
There is no driving of the engine by the car when you miss an up shift, the transmition is disengaged because you are in neutral.
The only time you have driving of the engine by the car, is when you select a lower gear too soon or you shift down a gear when you should be going up, i.e you went for 5th and got 3rd. That is the most damaging failure because you do accelerate the engine extremely rapidly, which tends to kill the rods, rod bolts and often the valvetrain components, even if the pistons and valves don't hit.
Also, you wont break the engine by dumping the clutch at a standstill, you may break the clutch, gearbox or other drivetrain components with the shock loading.
I understood the issue here was the wrong gear had been selected, not that the engine was revved up in neutral? And I've seen engines die in drag racing quite a few times.There is no driving of the engine by the car when you miss an up shift, the transmition is disengaged because you are in neutral.
The only time you have driving of the engine by the car, is when you select a lower gear too soon or you shift down a gear when you should be going up, i.e you went for 5th and got 3rd. That is the most damaging failure because you do accelerate the engine extremely rapidly, which tends to kill the rods, rod bolts and often the valvetrain components, even if the pistons and valves don't hit.
Also, you wont break the engine by dumping the clutch at a standstill, you may break the clutch, gearbox or other drivetrain components with the shock loading.
thunderbelmont said:
Here is how I see this.
Mark drove the car as part of an article for magazine he was working for. THEY held the insurance - not Mark.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
I dont agree at all.Mark drove the car as part of an article for magazine he was working for. THEY held the insurance - not Mark.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
Mark Hales was not 'painted' as an unreliable witness, he gave evidence himself and was described by the judge as an unreliable witness. So he did it himself, no one else.
Mark Hales was expected to cough up 40k many years ago for the engine rebuild. He didn't. So he was presumed through the courts where he had the option to pay up or fight it, risking more money. A risk no one forced him to take but one he took. He lost. Because he lost he must pay all the fees, not just his. That's why he now owes 120k, 40k for the motor and the rest costs for him not paying it years ago.
If you, I or anyone is ever in a position of being owed a lot of money, the court system is there to back us up should the creditor not pay us. People seem to make out the use of the courts was some vitriolic action by Piper, but tell me, what else he, you or I should do in such a situation? The system is there to decide who owes what, Piper went down that route believing he was right, Hales could have settled but didn't and decided to defend it. The Court decided Piper was right. So quite rightly, Hales was ordered to pay up.
The bankruptcy has resulted from him not paying up, agin this is the ultimate restitution option open to Piper when faced with a creditor who would not pay him despite a Court order being in place.
I don't see Piper had a great deal of options tbh. And none of us really know the options if any that were offered by either of the to each other, what we do know is that following a court case where the facts were presented by both parties, Piper was awarded the judgement. He's put hai faith in the justice system and won.
I'd like to know if Hales has made any actual payments to Piper in relation to this whole episode. Either out of his own pocket or out of the generous donations from others? So not offers of this or that, actual cash or cheques physically paid to Piper?
Anyone know? It seems to me Hales was happy enough to accept liability when the insurance company were due to cover him, but when they decided they were not liable, he's decided that he isn't liable either. But the Court has ruled he is. That's it. The acrimony that may or may not be present is immaterial, on the basis of the facts presented, the Court said Hales was liable.
corporalsparrow said:
thunderbelmont said:
Here is how I see this.
Mark drove the car as part of an article for magazine he was working for. THEY held the insurance - not Mark.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
Dear God...well you certainly get the prize for most rampant conspiracy theorist. Instead of opinion, why don't you look at the facts? The same facts that even Mark Hales has not objected to.Mark drove the car as part of an article for magazine he was working for. THEY held the insurance - not Mark.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
It jumped out of gear - there was some stuff about it being adjusted more for second for ease of use by DP. Of course your honour it 'raced' perfectly the prior time it was used - neglecting to mention the 'race' was nothing of the sort but actually the FoS press day's potter up the hill.
Hales of course had his own liability cover sorted through his limited company - DP found a way round that to go after him personally by citing the use of his personal email address to set up the test.
Would have been interesting if MH had waited to be towed back - turned down the tell tale and just reported that it 'stopped working with a bang' - he's not that sort of guy though.
He did have his own company liability insurance, but that was bypassed because Mark used a private email during conversations arranging the test.
My understanding is the car didn't select the gear properly and went back to neutral with full power applied, it then over revved beyond the very basic rev limiter that is fitted to a 917. It was not a failure caused by selecting the wrong gear.
My understanding is the car didn't select the gear properly and went back to neutral with full power applied, it then over revved beyond the very basic rev limiter that is fitted to a 917. It was not a failure caused by selecting the wrong gear.
Excelsior said:
I'll go with most of TB's theories ...
It jumped out of gear - there was some stuff about it being adjusted more for second for ease of use by DP. Of course your honour it 'raced' perfectly the prior time it was used - neglecting to mention the 'race' was nothing of the sort but actually the FoS press day's potter up the hill.
Hales of course had his own liability cover sorted through his limited company - DP found a way round that to go after him personally by citing the use of his personal email address to set up the test.
Would have been interesting if MH had waited to be towed back - turned down the tell tale and just reported that it 'stopped working with a bang' - he's not that sort of guy though.
Theories....It jumped out of gear - there was some stuff about it being adjusted more for second for ease of use by DP. Of course your honour it 'raced' perfectly the prior time it was used - neglecting to mention the 'race' was nothing of the sort but actually the FoS press day's potter up the hill.
Hales of course had his own liability cover sorted through his limited company - DP found a way round that to go after him personally by citing the use of his personal email address to set up the test.
Would have been interesting if MH had waited to be towed back - turned down the tell tale and just reported that it 'stopped working with a bang' - he's not that sort of guy though.
Piper found away to go after him....
He's not that sort of guy, no just one who doesnt pay his bills, even when the court orders it so
Mark Hales, everyone favourite victim
johnfelstead said:
He did have his own company liability insurance, but that was bypassed because Mark used a private email during conversations arranging the test.
As I understand it, Octane had insurance but I've not seen it suggested elsewhere that Fenlands did. Were there two insurance companies which both declined to cover the loss?No, Mark had his own liability insurance cover in place via his limited company, but that was bypassed due to a technicality relating to the use of none company email whilst arranging the test. It's something a lot of company directors could fall foul off if they communicated via personal emails on company business.
johnfelstead said:
No, Mark had his own liability insurance cover in place via his limited company, but that was bypassed due to a technicality relating to the use of none company email whilst arranging the test. It's something a lot of company directors could fall foul off if they communicated via personal emails on company business.
The judgement says the insurance was via Octane"having confirmed
the insurance arrangements on 25 March 2009 that Octane Media Limited, his
publishers, would insure the cars involved and also have public liability insurance in
place too".
And liability insurance wouldnt have helped in this instance anyway, would it
Edited by freedman on Saturday 29th June 08:49
johnfelstead said:
No, Mark had his own liability insurance cover in place via his limited company, but that was bypassed due to a technicality relating to the use of none company email whilst arranging the test. It's something a lot of company directors could fall foul off if they communicated via personal emails on company business.
Liability insurance can't be "bypassed" simply due to using a personal email address, company directors needn't be concerned.Liability insurance wouldn't cover this kind of risk in any case, it would require a specialist policy.
GreigM said:
johnfelstead said:
No, Mark had his own liability insurance cover in place via his limited company, but that was bypassed due to a technicality relating to the use of none company email whilst arranging the test. It's something a lot of company directors could fall foul off if they communicated via personal emails on company business.
Liability insurance can't be "bypassed" simply due to using a personal email address, company directors needn't be concerned.Liability insurance wouldn't cover this kind of risk in any case, it would require a specialist policy.
RYH64E said:
The cynic in me wonders whether the limited company insurance was the ability to leave the debt with the company and avoid any personal liability, that's a pretty good insurance against risk.
I would agree and that is the reason that DP's legal team moved against MH personally, not as some have claimed to prevent him from using his companies PI cover but to ensure the debt was recoverable from his personal assets rather than from a limited company with insufficient assets. johnfelstead said:
That is exactly why people set up limited companies, to leave the debt liability with the company, not the individual.
It was all covered in the original thread information as to how Mark ended up personally liable.
If a director is negligent in the course of their companies business it's quite possible to sue the director personally for negligence rather than the company. It was all covered in the original thread information as to how Mark ended up personally liable.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff