Re: nick
I enjoy bashing Nick as well as the next guy but I think at times it gets way to personal and strays from the essential Porsche/Ferrari wars that generally start the thread. I also think at times the bashing misstates the facts. In this matter Nick is not the plaintiff's attorney and has defended the Keaton family. The keaton family through his estate is a named defendant and Nick got the insurance company to indemnify the Keaton family and represent them against the plaintiff's attorney and the Rudl family. Which is a HUGE deal for the well being of Ben's family. How would you like to be Ben's widow and have a monthly attorney bill of several thousand coming in every month and wondering if a judgement for possibly seven figures is entered againts Ben's estate where all the money was going to come from to pay it?? I would imagine she has enough to deal with right now without that nightmare?
I have noticed over the years Nick doesn't spend a lot of time writing or organizing his posts on this and other Porsche forums. He tends from my observation to rush through them and sometimes they don't come out exactly they way he wants them too. I Think he looks at these forums as socializing and relaxing and his statements due in large part to his own lack of time are sometimes misconstrued.
I also think Nick truly believes (although he can speak for himself quite well) that the CGT is unstable at high speeds and some form of a design flaw exists. I think Nick would not be surprised if during discovery in this suit the Plaintiff's attorney discovered a smoking gun document related to poor handling like in the previous 930 suit? I think Nick blames this perceived handling design flaw on the death of his friend Ben Keaton.
I also think Nick believes that Porsche should have been required to install more driver computer aids since Porsche didn't require any form of racing license or driver experience requirements before a prospective purchaser could buy a CGT. I think he disagree's with the fact that anyone with a checkbook could buy a CGT without regard to skill level on a car that he believes requires great skill to drive at speed due to a lack of computer assist driver aids.
As an owner of a CGT with years of seat time in various race cars and years of racing experience I believe the CGT to be the best handling car I have ever driven without any design flaw whatsoever.
One dynamic to this lawsuit that concerns me is what were the expectations of Corey Rudl when he entered Ben's car as a passenger? Did Corey think he was getting an easy demo ride around the track or a full race lap at the limit of Ben's skill capablities? I don't know what Corey thought he was getting into when he chose to ride along as a passenger in Ben's car and that is an issue for this suit to resolve?
To some extent I can understand why the Rudl family would want to know if he was killed due to a Porsche CGT design flaw or a concrete barrier to close to the run off area or the pure incomptetence of another driver or corner worker.
Let's all note that Ben's estate is NOT a plaintiff in this action against Porsche. I don't think it's that unreasonable for the Rudl estate to want some more answers at this point. Although it is sad and ugly for all the familes involved. We might also remember the Rudl family attorney doesn't get paid unless he wins a judgement and I can't see Porsche paying any form of settlement without being proven negligent at trial so this has a long way to go. Many, many years of litigation ahead.
I have noticed over the years Nick doesn't spend a lot of time writing or organizing his posts on this and other Porsche forums. He tends from my observation to rush through them and sometimes they don't come out exactly they way he wants them too. I Think he looks at these forums as socializing and relaxing and his statements due in large part to his own lack of time are sometimes misconstrued.
I also think Nick truly believes (although he can speak for himself quite well) that the CGT is unstable at high speeds and some form of a design flaw exists. I think Nick would not be surprised if during discovery in this suit the Plaintiff's attorney discovered a smoking gun document related to poor handling like in the previous 930 suit? I think Nick blames this perceived handling design flaw on the death of his friend Ben Keaton.
I also think Nick believes that Porsche should have been required to install more driver computer aids since Porsche didn't require any form of racing license or driver experience requirements before a prospective purchaser could buy a CGT. I think he disagree's with the fact that anyone with a checkbook could buy a CGT without regard to skill level on a car that he believes requires great skill to drive at speed due to a lack of computer assist driver aids.
As an owner of a CGT with years of seat time in various race cars and years of racing experience I believe the CGT to be the best handling car I have ever driven without any design flaw whatsoever.
One dynamic to this lawsuit that concerns me is what were the expectations of Corey Rudl when he entered Ben's car as a passenger? Did Corey think he was getting an easy demo ride around the track or a full race lap at the limit of Ben's skill capablities? I don't know what Corey thought he was getting into when he chose to ride along as a passenger in Ben's car and that is an issue for this suit to resolve?
To some extent I can understand why the Rudl family would want to know if he was killed due to a Porsche CGT design flaw or a concrete barrier to close to the run off area or the pure incomptetence of another driver or corner worker.
Let's all note that Ben's estate is NOT a plaintiff in this action against Porsche. I don't think it's that unreasonable for the Rudl estate to want some more answers at this point. Although it is sad and ugly for all the familes involved. We might also remember the Rudl family attorney doesn't get paid unless he wins a judgement and I can't see Porsche paying any form of settlement without being proven negligent at trial so this has a long way to go. Many, many years of litigation ahead.
