Crown

Board: Porsche Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Quote:
    A430v said:
    ...Porsche would want to know for sure, but via a lawsuit asking for money??? hmmmm...



    Unfortunately, that is the only way to do it in the US. It is not guaranteed that the plantiff will win or get any money. And then they may win and not get any money at all.

    And sometimes, the only way to get a company even to take you seriously is through a lawsuit.

    And the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They have to prove that there is a defect with the car.

    And remember also, all the talk on the previous posts are all speculation. No one knows for sure what the plantiff has charged. Fortunately, since it will become public record, we can all read it if Findlaw or some other organization posts it on the web.

    Maybe we can get a Rennteam member to get some court credentials. RC?

    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Svtrader and Nick, i wonder what Porsche did to make you hate them so much...

    Anyway, i'm staying out of this matter from now on..

    [edited out the good wishes ]

    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Quote:
    svtrader1 said:
    Quote:
    nberry said:
    Uboat like many others you are confusing active safety devices with passive devices. One activates to prevent the accident, the other mitigate injury.





    That's an excellent point! While it is important to have all the safety devices for when you crash, it is irrefutably more important to prevent the crash in the first place.

    Nick, in your closing remarks quote Benjamin Franklin: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

    And don't settle for less than 7 figures.



    I think we are splitting hairs now. What about AWD? Was it negligent of Porsche not to make the CGT AWD?

    In any event, I vote for ending the thread now. We'll see what happens. It may be many years before we know the outcome.

    Nick, since it seems like you are close to the case in some way, please keep us informed regarding the proceedings to the extent you can consistent with whatever ethical obligations you have.

    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Quote:
    nberry said:
    It is reported that Jay Leno (an experienced driver) lost control in a short straight away and spun several time thankfully not hitting any barriers. His experience is very reminicent of what happened to Ben and Ben was going at a slower speed.


    As I mentioned on the Rennlist thread that had people blaming Leno and Porsche, his (leno's) experience is not reminiscent of Ben's situation! When the lawyers in San Diego subpoena the PCNA records they'll find that the suspension in the two high speed attempt Carrera GTs was not something available in any CGT that you or I could buy AND that Leno's spin was a result of the staggered (left-to-right) tire air pressures. Had the air pressures been equal (like Ben's car) the spin would never have happened! That said, I do agree with you that if a company knows of a potential problem with their product and chooses not to do anything about it for whatever reason (marketing, weight reduction, etc.), than something should be done about it for them.

    When Ben made the initial steering correction was he on the banked oval or the infield?

    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Quote:

    WHAT IS IRONIC IS I BELIEVE PORSCHE WOULD WANT TO KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS CAR.




    I don't think that Porsche will or could learn something from you about the CGT ,Nick.

    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Quote:
    SoCal Alan said:
    Quote:
    Carlos from Spain said:
    Quote:
    nberry said:
    Recently a CGT was sold by a Porsche dealer to a buyer who told them he did not know how to use a manual transmissions. What more do you need to open your eyes?



    And the responsability is who's???? not the buyers not the law's, are you saying its the dealer's or Porsche's???




    Nick, why is this the dealer's fault and not the buyer's? Unbelievable.

    Not that the buyer can't learn how to use a manual on a CGT. I probably wouldn't try to learn on a CGT. But why can't the buyer take the responsiblity to learn how to drive the stick on his own, on an easier car? This babysitting, lack of personal responsibility mentality we have here in the U.S. really has to stop.



    You can bet that if the dealership HAD not sold that person the CGT, the customer would have sued the crap out of the dealership and won.

    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Quote:
    nberry said:
    Uboat like many others you are confusing active safety devices with passive devices. One activates to prevent the accident, the other mitigate injury.

    I would expect airlines to have back up on critical systems. Fly with one engine down and so on.

    I am not alleging there is a defect regarding the CGT. I do not know if there is a defect. This thread began when people took the position that if you are at a speedway and are injured it is the drivers responsibility because he/she assumed ALL risks. I think that is poppy-cock.

    In the case of the CGT, evidence does tend to show a possible issue concerning the stability of the car and until that is thoroughly investigated we should not prejudge or denegrate who wish to investigate the issue.

    WHAT IS IRONIC IS I BELIEVE PORSCHE WOULD WANT TO KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS CAR.

    Good safety conscious companies would want to know.Time will tell.



    On contrare Nick, a lack of emphasis about the actions of the track worker who caused the accident has distorted the discussion here into a he said - she said debate over your questioning the CGTs safe design and the issue of personal responsibility about the risk of driving on a race track.

    Out of curiosity, was there any police investigation about the accident? If so, what did it say? Not that they would provide all of the answers or be garunteed to give a 100% accurate report, but one would think that they would spend some effort into investigating the deaths of two people.

    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Quote:
    JimFlat6 said:
    Quote:
    nberry said:
    Uboat like many others you are confusing active safety devices with passive devices. One activates to prevent the accident, the other mitigate injury.

    I would expect airlines to have back up on critical systems. Fly with one engine down and so on.

    I am not alleging there is a defect regarding the CGT. I do not know if there is a defect. This thread began when people took the position that if you are at a speedway and are injured it is the drivers responsibility because he/she assumed ALL risks. I think that is poppy-cock.

    In the case of the CGT, evidence does tend to show a possible issue concerning the stability of the car and until that is thoroughly investigated we should not prejudge or denegrate who wish to investigate the issue.

    WHAT IS IRONIC IS I BELIEVE PORSCHE WOULD WANT TO KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS CAR.

    Good safety conscious companies would want to know.Time will tell.



    On contrare Nick, a lack of emphasis about the actions of the track worker who caused the accident has distorted the discussion here into a he said - she said debate over your questioning the CGTs safe design and the issue of personal responsibility about the risk of driving on a race track.

    Out of curiosity, was there any police investigation about the accident? If so, what did it say? Not that they would provide all of the answers or be garunteed to give a 100% accurate report, but one would think that they would spend some effort into investigating the deaths of two people.




    The only thing to do now is get nick into his Spider, put him on that track at 130 mph (instead of 170, since he claims it wasn't faster than that) and make him do fast laps. Then, a surprise car would be launched from the pits and we can then see Mr. Berry take evasive action with his uber-safe car.
    If I were to make any bets, I'd blame his future death on the lack of sidebags or faulty, ignition-prone wiring .

    Nick, if I were a Formula One driver and I crash into a barrier in Monaco, could I sue my team for not providing me with stability controls? Or perhaps even the organization itself for replacing slicks with threaded tyres?
    The Carrera GT is a high performance vehicle, with performance which cannot be achieved by using stability controls (ever thought that the LSD interferes with the PSM at such extreme levels?). Same goes for the Enzo. If you'd look at the production numbers and miles driven, you'd see that the Enzo has had roughly the same accident rate as the CGT. The only difference is that you can't sue Ferrari because you want to stay their customer and because they can't pay enough for you to make your fee

    Re: Porsche & Lawsuits

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    The only thing to do now is get nick into his Spider, put him on that track at 130 mph



    Thats far too fast for Nick , 60mph would be his limit ( hairdresser speeds ) . oo oo oo ..

    throt..

    nick

    you can spin it any way you want nick, but this is nothing more than a shakedown.
    and you are doing nothing but hurting the sport you claim to love.

    jeff

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    icon said:
    you can spin it any way you want nick, but this is nothing more than a shakedown.
    and you are doing nothing but hurting the sport you claim to love.

    jeff



    Welcome aboard, Jeff!
    And what a nice first post!

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    icon said:
    you can spin it any way you want nick, but this is nothing more than a shakedown.
    and you are doing nothing but hurting the sport you claim to love.

    jeff



    Welcome aboard, Jeff!
    And what a nice first post!



    icon,

    Welcome! Yea, that sums it up!


    Re: nick

    Quote:
    icon said:
    you can spin it any way you want nick, but this is nothing more than a shakedown.
    and you are doing nothing but hurting the sport you claim to love.

    jeff



    [sarcasm]

    C'MON GUYS! You know that Nick is spending as much (if not more) time and energy trying to find out if the track worker was the one who caused this accident.

    WHAT IS IRONIC IS I BELIEVE THE TRACK WOULD WANT TO KNOW IF THEY HIRED AN INCOMPETENT WORKER.

    [/sarcasm]

    Re: nick

    What was the status the "track worker"?

    A employee of the race track?
    A volunteer from the Ferrari Club that organized the event? A spectator casually pressed into service?
    Acting alone without instruction from event staff?

    Two people die from someones actions that precipitated a major accident and yet that person who may have caused it
    and his status at the event remains a mystery?

    This accident seems more like a train station manager stupidly ordering a train onto the tracks immediately in front of a speeding train.

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    JimFlat6 said:This accident seems more like a train station manager stupidly ordering a train onto the tracks immediately in front of a speeding train.



    My thoughts exactly. At the time, and yet today.

    Re: nick

    "Shakedown"

    Perfect!

    Back in the '80's there was a cool comic strip "Bloom County". One of the characters was this oily lawyer, Steve Dallas. One night Mr. Dallas gets punched out in an alley behind a bar while trying to take pictures of a drunken Sean Penn throwing up.

    Anyway, on one strip, Mr. Dallas presents an instructional dialogue about "How to sue".

    First, he explains that it it critical to choose the right entity to sue:

    Mr. Penn? No, never, EVER sue psychopathic celeberties.

    Madonna? True, being married to Madonna may cause such agressive behaviour, but Madonna might be even more dangerous. Bad idea.

    The bar owner? A small bar with only marginal profiability. Never, EVER sue anyone without much money.

    The "Nikolta" camera company? YES, perfect! A huge, multi-national corporation with gobs of liquid cash!

    So Mr. Dallas decided to sue them for millions of dollars for not putting a warning sticker on their cameras that photographing drunk celeberties can be hazardous to your health.

    I guess if Nick is somehow involved in this case, he will combine his anti-porsche emotions (too obvious) with his need to win to convice himself that the nonsensical postions he has postulated in this thread are valid.

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    amjf088 said:
    "Shakedown"

    Perfect!

    Back in the '80's there was a cool comic strip "Bloom County". One of the characters was this oily lawyer, Steve Dallas. One night Mr. Dallas gets punched out in an alley behind a bar while trying to take pictures of a drunken Sean Penn throwing up.

    Anyway, on one strip, Mr. Dallas presents an instructional dialogue about "How to sue".

    First, he explains that it it critical to choose the right entity to sue:

    Mr. Penn? No, never, EVER sue psychopathic celeberties.

    Madonna? True, being married to Madonna may cause such agressive behaviour, but Madonna might be even more dangerous. Bad idea.

    The bar owner? A small bar with only marginal profiability. Never, EVER sue anyone without much money.

    The "Nikolta" camera company? YES, perfect! A huge, multi-national corporation with gobs of liquid cash!

    So Mr. Dallas decided to sue them for millions of dollars for not putting a warning sticker on their cameras that photographing drunk celeberties can be hazardous to your health.

    I guess if Nick is somehow involved in this case, he will combine his anti-porsche emotions (too obvious) with his need to win to convice himself that the nonsensical postions he has postulated in this thread are valid.



    Golden

    Re: nick

    I have seen a copy of the lawsuit filed by Tracy Rudl the widow of Ben's passenger in the San Diego Superior court. Porsche is a defendant as is Ben's estate as well as the driver of the Ferrari that pulled in front of Ben. The flagman is also named in the suit as is the speedway and the San Diego Ferrai club and the event organizer.

    Fortunately Ben's estate is being represented by his insurance company and for one reason and one reason only and his name is NICK. The insurance company intially denied coverage to Ben's family because the accident happened at a race track. Nick interceded on behalf of the Keaton family and forced the insurance company to represent them and make available the liablity coverage for Ben's family otherwise Ben's family would pay any potential judgement out of their own pockets as well as paying an attorney to represent them.

    Nick was also the guy who got the insurance company to pay for every penny of the totaled CGT at a value far above what the car was worth thereby again saving the Keaton family out of pocket costs.

    I have posted more details about the lawsuit on Rennlist.com. including the name of the actual Plaintiff's attorney which is not Nick Berry but R.Craig McClellan

    Now I am sorry I interrupted your Nick Bash fest please continue bashing the guy who is quietly working behind the scenes helping Ben's family free of charge and honoring his memory in a real and tangible way.

    Re: nick

    Les, I have to admit, that sounds laudable.

    But the discussion in this thread has been about constantly trying to blame this unfortunate accident on the car. Do you really think that was the case? Not meaning that in a confrontational way, mind you, I'm just curious. It sounds although you're closer to the case...

    Re: nick

    I hope the outcome will be that Porsche proves there is no malfunction/design problems with the car, but it needs to be proven. Once proven though all the expenses should be on the attacking party.

    As for suing Ben's estate, this is sad. It is like saying Ben did this on purpose and his estate should pay for that.

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    amjf088 said:
    Les, I have to admit, that sounds laudable.

    But the discussion in this thread has been about constantly trying to blame this unfortunate accident on the car. Do you really think that was the case? Not meaning that in a confrontational way, mind you, I'm just curious. It sounds although you're closer to the case...


    No one knows right now the actual cause of the accident. The trial will determine that. A lawyer for the plaintiff has to name Porsche as a defendant plus everyone else that was involved. If Porsche was not named and later it is found out that there was some cause, you can not go back and add them later especially if the statue of limitations runs out (2 years in California and the trial would take at least a year before it starts). The lawyer for the plaintiff would be guilty of malpractice.

    And lets get some perspective on this: two lives were lost needlessly.

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    vtrader said:
    No one knows right now the actual cause of the accident. The trial will determine that.


    the trial will make a determination of the actual cause.

    what nick has done for the family is very commendable.
    i know nick cannot say, but i would be interested as to how he was able to get state farm to cover what they initially denied.
    and not only that but to represent ben's estate in the law suit.

    Re: nick

    IMHO the CGT has absolutely no design or handling flaw and I attribute the crash to an inexperienced flagman and Ferrari driver who pulled out in front of Ben. Then Ben didn't have enough experience in a crisis to cope with the situation safely. The more you race the more you learn to anticipate other drivers doing stupid things. That comes from seat time and experience.

    Every time I was in a race or especially at a track event like this one filled with inexperienced drivers and went by pit out I always assumed that the possiblity existed that someone would pull out without regard to me or the corner worker and closely watched pit out. That comes from the experience of having someone pull out in front of me so many times that it was ingrained in my head to watch for it. Ben didn't have that experience or knowledge to fall back on so I suspect he was completely shocked to see a car suddenly appear in front of him. I have had several cars pull out on me from the pits at the California Speed way over the years but at a different pit out location. It happens and we assume that risk every time we venture onto a race track in my opinion.

    The filing of the lawsuit was inevitable and the family of the deceased are still grieving and want answers and want someone to blame other then the ones they loved for their loss.

    Re: nick

    Actually, I have no problem with the plaintiff's lawyer naming Porsche, along with everyone else. I agree and understand why that is done.

    But there has been (in this thread) a lot of effort to cast aspersions on Porsche for having produced such an uncompromising car (similar to Enzo etc.) Some of the comments here have been speculative and inflammatory (with no real back-up), and the otherwise good intentions and deeds of individuals is a seperate matter.

    There is a definite line between naming Porsche on the suit to cover the possibility that there is indeed a defect in the car (good) and actively campaigning to pin it on Porsche just because they produced a supercar and can pay big damages.

    IMO anyone who feels that the car manufacturer is at fault for making such a car available to the public should put their money where their mouth is and turn in their performance cars and stop doing track days, because, PSM or not, there is a lot of danger with driving on the track at such high rates of speed. Ben was a great driver who could handle his GT well at speed. Tragically he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    This car is plenty safe at legal speeds but it is a mid-engined supercar with race car performance. What happened to Ben and Cory was a tragic accident that likely had ifinitely more to do with a high rate of speed (130 mph is plenty fast in that sort of situation) and another car being accidentaly waved in front of Ben. ALthough most of us (me included) don't know all the details of the accident, there were plenty of witnesses and enough has been written to paint a fairly clear picture. This was a very public tragedy.

    Re: nick

    Les,

    I just read your post (I was writing my previous one in the meantime.

    I think you have stated the reality well.

    Re: nick

    Removing the need to accept responsibility for one's actions, use common sense, etc. is a sad path that America is on. Like most things, our laws provide more good than bad but $2million for a cup of coffee in your lap? C'mon.

    On the issues of whether or not to equip a car with certain safety equipment or not...whoever buys a CGT knows full well what the car has and what it doesn't have. Although no one died in any of the McLaren F1 inaugural press rides and testing shakedowns, that's probably due more to luck than anything else. Bernd Piedt(somethingorother) was CEO at the time of BMW and he totaled one. There were several others to my knowledge that also had significant damage. The F1 is similar to the CGT (manual transmission, carbon fiber, etc.) but even at $1M, Gordon Murray chose NOT to equip it with airbags or yaw control or traction control even though these technologies were readily available. Why? Because he made the compromise of performance vs. weight. Anyone who bought one of his cars should do his homework beforehand. Just like you shouldn't buy (or lease) a Cayenne without test driving one first and realizing that it's throttle "hesitation" is not a bug that needs to be fixed by your dealer - it's how the car was designed. Right Nick?

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    Les Quam said:
    IMHO the CGT has absolutely no design or handling flaw and I attribute the crash to an inexperienced flagman and Ferrari driver who pulled out in front of Ben. Then Ben didn't have enough experience in a crisis to cope with the situation safely. The more you race the more you learn to anticipate other drivers doing stupid things. That comes from seat time and experience.

    Every time I was in a race or especially at a track event like this one filled with inexperienced drivers and went by pit out I always assumed that the possiblity existed that someone would pull out without regard to me or the corner worker and closely watched pit out. That comes from the experience of having someone pull out in front of me so many times that it was ingrained in my head to watch for it. Ben didn't have that experience or knowledge to fall back on so I suspect he was completely shocked to see a car suddenly appear in front of him. I have had several cars pull out on me from the pits at the California Speed way over the years but at a different pit out location. It happens and we assume that risk every time we venture onto a race track in my opinion.

    The filing of the lawsuit was inevitable and the family of the deceased are still grieving and want answers and want someone to blame other then the ones they loved for their loss.



    Les, thank you for pointing out what Nick has done (gotta say I'm glad), but reading the entire thread and Nick's replies, can you blame us for bashing him? As far as we were concerned, he was obviously up to something in connection to that lawsuit.
    I agree with your other comments.

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    Jeff (in SF) said:
    Removing the need to accept responsibility for one's actions, use common sense, etc. is a sad path that America is on. Like most things, our laws provide more good than bad but $2million for a cup of coffee in your lap? C'mon.
    ...



    OK, since you mentioned the McDOnald's lawsuit, here are some Mcfacts about that lawsuit:

    "The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

    McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

    McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

    McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

    McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

    McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

    McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

    McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

    McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years."

    Would you expect that if coffee spilled on you that within 2 seconds it would cause you third-degree burns?

    Re: nick

    Quote:
    vtrader said:
    Quote:
    Jeff (in SF) said:
    Removing the need to accept responsibility for one's actions, use common sense, etc. is a sad path that America is on. Like most things, our laws provide more good than bad but $2million for a cup of coffee in your lap? C'mon.
    ...



    OK, since you mentioned the McDOnald's lawsuit, here are some Mcfacts about that lawsuit:

    "The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

    McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

    McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

    McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

    McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

    McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

    McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

    McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

    McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years."

    Would you expect that if coffee spilled on you that within 2 seconds it would cause you third-degree burns?



    You mean to tell me that if you made a cup of boiling water at home, that you need someone else to tell you not to spill it on yourself? Do you need a warning label on your tea kettle? Who would you sue if you spilled this on yourself?

    C'MON!!!!

    Re: nick

    I will donate $500 to the defense of the CGT/Fontana lawsuit.

    Les is right: "The more you race the more you learn to anticipate other drivers doing stupid things. That comes from seat time and experience." To "drivers' I would add corner workers and everyone else involved - they're all human, all make mistakes.

    If you cannot accept the consequences of driving on track, stay in the paddock. If you decide to drive on track, plan for all the consequences.

     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 4/17/24 7:16 AM
    GnilM
    778761 1798
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 4/7/24 11:48 AM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    442165 565
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Cayman GT4 RS (2021) 5/12/23 12:11 PM
    W8MM
    263035 288
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Porsche 911 (992) GT3 RS - 2022 3/12/24 8:28 AM
    DJM48
    261321 323
    Porsche Sticky The new Macan: the first all-electric SUV from Porsche 1/30/24 9:18 AM
    RCA
    85558 45
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Taycan 2024 Facelift 3/15/24 1:23 PM
    CGX car nut
    5773 50
    Porsche The moment I've been waiting for... 2/1/24 7:01 PM
    Pilot
     
     
     
     
     
    881001 1364
    Porsche 992 GT3 7/23/23 7:01 PM
    Grant
    817088 3868
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 2/10/24 4:43 PM
    nberry
    391338 1526
    Porsche GT4RS 4/21/24 11:50 AM
    mcdelaug
    390808 1454
    Others Tesla 2 the new thread 12/13/23 2:48 PM
    CGX car nut
    373078 2401
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 7/3/23 12:30 PM
    Porker
    369170 797
    Porsche Red Nipples 991.2 GT3 Touring on tour 4/11/24 12:32 PM
    Ferdie
    289502 668
    Porsche Collected my 997 GTS today 10/19/23 7:06 PM
    CGX car nut
     
     
     
     
     
    261569 812
    Lambo Huracán EVO STO 7/30/23 6:59 PM
    mcdelaug
    240433 346
    Lotus Lotus Emira 6/25/23 2:53 PM
    Enmanuel
    230858 101
    Others Corvette C8 10/16/23 3:24 PM
    Enmanuel
    221385 488
    Others Gordon Murray - T.50 11/22/23 10:27 AM
    mcdelaug
    169559 387
    Porsche Back to basics - 996 GT3 RS 6/11/23 5:13 PM
    CGX car nut
    141311 144
    BMW M 2024 BMW M3 CS Official Now 12/29/23 9:04 AM
    RCA
    117822 303
    Motor Sp. 2023 Formula One 12/19/23 5:38 AM
    WhoopsyM
    108839 685
    Porsche 2022 992 Safari Model 3/7/24 4:22 PM
    WhoopsyM
    84362 239
    AMG Mercedes-Benz W124 500E aka Porsche typ 2758 2/23/24 10:03 PM
    blueflame
    75225 297
    Porsche 992 GT3 RS 3/3/24 7:22 PM
    WhoopsyM
    53909 314
    Motor Sp. Porsche 963 3/16/24 9:27 PM
    WhoopsyM
    25254 237
    Ferrari Ferrari 296 GTB (830PS, Hybrid V6) 1/21/24 4:29 PM
    GT-Boy
    21190 103
    BMW M 2022 BMW M5 CS 4/8/24 1:43 PM
    Ferdie
    19536 140
    AMG G63 sold out 9/15/23 7:38 PM
    Nico997
    16600 120
    AMG [2022] Mercedes-AMG SL 4/23/24 1:24 PM
    RCA
    13841 225
    Motor Sp. 24-Hour race Nürburgring 2018 5/25/23 10:42 PM
    Grant
    11272 55
    126 items found, displaying 1 to 30.