[hckr_wolf]

Originally Posted by Avanti ↗

"Black boxes" being installed in road going cars is still quite new stuff and the CGT is from 2005. Could be that they that they could do some data aquisition from the ECU if they let that feature stay when they developed it from it's original purpose as a racing ECU. Then only Porsche could analyse it correctly.

I'm no car expert, so I'm not sure if the ECU is what reporters are referring to... But this is what one article has to say about it:

[Lawyer Craig McClellan, who represented Corey Rudl's widow in a similar accident in 2005] said the car has a “black box” that should be able to reveal the speed the car was traveling prior to the crash, whether the driver was accelerating or trying to apply the brakes and whether the car’s airbags worked properly.

“It’s a black box located in the tunnel by the transmission, so there shouldn’t be a problem with it surviving the collision,” McClellan said. “It has a proprietary encryption, so I imagine investigators will have to get some special help and equipment to be able to download and interpret the results. It might take some time.”

He said if law enforcement doesn’t have the resources for such a sophisticated accident reconstruction, it will be up to the victims’ families to pursue one, possibly through a civil lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Avanti ↗

I hope this lawsuit turns into nothing. Very rare that components fail on the road when it comes to these kind of cars as they have to be very overdimensioned when it comes to safety. The car was not originally built as a short sprint racer either, it was built for 24 punishing hours around Le Mans. It is a temperamental car but that's what you get when you turn a racecar into a car for the road. No compromises. The owners of the cars knew that and should drive them with the respect they deserve, especially on the street.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, it appears I was wrong about the previous lawsuit (Rudl in '05) not involving any mechanical failures. While no failures were tied to the cause of the accident, the estate managed to successfully sue Porsche because the passenger's airbag never deployed. Also, from the same article:

Internet pioneer Corey Rudl died in the passenger seat of the same model year vehicle in 2005, and Porsche eventually paid six figures toward a settlement won by Rudl’s widow.

Porsche engineers did not equip the vehicle with a computerized safety feature known as electronic stability control, and Rudl’s passenger airbag never deployed, lawyer Craig McClellan told the Daily News Tuesday.

Electronic safety control is a computerized technology that improves a vehicle’s stability by detecting a loss of traction or control and immediately correcting it; it is now required in all new cars in the U.S.

“They stopped selling this car in the U.S. because it wasn’t able to meet U.S. safety standards,” the lawyer said. “It certainly would have been good to recall and retrofit the cars (with stability control), but they had so few sold in the U.S., they probably just decided they wouldn’t bother with it.”

McClellan said Porsche engineers who were deposed in Germany for the Rudl case said they intentionally excluded the company’s Porsche Stability Management (PSM) technology when they designed the 2005 Carrera GT.

“One engineer said customers wouldn’t want it, another said the car had too much vibration for it to work well,” McClellan said.

[hckr_wolf]

The following is from TMZ, so take from it what you will:

Paul Walker Family Believes
Road Bumps Sealed His Fate

Paul Walker died after the speeding Porsche in which he was riding hydroplaned on reflective plastic markers in the street ... at least that's what his family and accident reconstruction experts believe.

Sources close to Paul's family tell TMZ ... the family has been in touch with stunt experts who have gone to the crash site and come back with what they believe is a solid theory -- a speeding car that hits the plastic markers -- called Botts' Dots -- will hydroplane, causing the driver to lose control.

We've learned the experts have told the family ... a car going speeds approaching 90 MPH will lose traction after hitting a series of Botts' Dots. It's akin to driving on ice -- and control is further compromised by the fact that the Porsche was outfitted with special racing tires that have very little tread.

And there's this ... Porsche sent out a memo to dealers back in 2004, warning about control problems with the Carrera GT, saying, "This vehicle cannot drive over a Foster Beer can that is lying on its side. It will crush the can and damage the carbon fiber under panels," adding, "You need to be aware of what type of road surface you are on (dips, pot holes, seam heights, etc.)."

Law enforcement sources say they have not concluded the exact cause of the accident, but it appears they're looking at the Botts' Dots ... as a viable theory for triggering the fatal crash.

[Pyramid_Head]

The GT just seems like a very stupidly designed vehicle.

[Kelseecat65]

Originally Posted by Pyramid_Head ↗

The GT just seems like a very stupidly designed vehicle.

It sounds like it is too damn fragile to drive on a regular road....you would think, if that document is real, that both of them would have known that info.
The road is lined with those dots...

[Clubhouse]

The death of actor Paul Walker has cast doubt upon the future of the Fast & Furious franchise, but according to the Hollywood Reporter, work on rewriting the next installation is already underway. Sources familiar with the matter tell THR that screenwriter Chris Morgan has begun revising the script for Fast & Furious 7 to allow for Walker's character to exit the series using footage that has already been shot. The hope is that with a reworked script, cast and crew will be able to resume filming by late January, though that's far from guaranteed.

After a fiery car crash claimed Walker's life in late November, it was reported that Universal Studios would proceed with production of Fast & Furious 7 as planned, though the studio later reversed course and put the film on indefinite hold. The movie, directed by James Wan, had been scheduled to hit theaters in July 2014, but sources tell THR that this timetable has now been scrapped.

Universal has reportedly invested about$150 million in the film, and about half of Walker's scenes have already been shot. Executives are looking at ways to salvage that footage, and the studio says there is widespread fan support for continuing the franchise, though Morgan and Universal's creative team realize that it must be handled delicately.

"What will drive everything is, is there an honorable and sensible way to do this?" a source told THR, before admitting that "there's not really a road map" for the dilemma the studio now faces.

Source

[Avanti]

Originally Posted by Kelseecat65 ↗

It sounds like it is too damn fragile to drive on a regular road....you would think, if that document is real, that both of them would have known that info.
The road is lined with those dots...

It's not a stupidly designed fragile car, it's directly derived from a race car which was designed to withstand the second most demanding and testing race after the Nürburgring 24h, the Le Mans 24h.

Those bumps are in no way capable in unsettling the car -unless- you are driving the car in an unresponsible way for the roads. You guys have seen the usually red/white kerbs in the corners of a racetrack? The height of each kerb bump is about 10-15 cms high and are located 20-30 cms after another and driving the car the right way it manages those easily. It is a very stiff and very fast car and the owners know exactly what they were and how they behaved when they bought them.

If this isn't a mechanical failure, and I seriously doubt it is unless the car hasn't been maintained properly, the responsibility lies with the driver. Doesn't matter what car you're in, it's only you, and you alone, that can make it dangerous.

[Kelseecat65]

Originally Posted by Avanti ↗

It's not a stupidly designed fragile car.

I used the word fragile due to the following statement, supposedly issued by Porsche;

"This vehicle cannot drive over a Foster Beer can that is lying on its side. It will crush the can and damage the carbon fiber under panels," adding, "You need to be aware of what type of road surface you are on (dips, pot holes, seam heights, etc.)."

Perhaps I chose the wrong word, but that seems fragile to me...

[invertigo]

'impractical' would be an appropriate term. Any car that cannot go over a speed bump is not the best thing to be running errands with.

[Kelseecat65]

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

'impractical' would be an appropriate term. Any car that cannot go over a speed bump is not the best thing to be running errands with.

Especially without worrying about damaging the carbon fiber under panels

[hckr_wolf]

Originally Posted by Avanti ↗

It's not a stupidly designed fragile car, it's directly derived from a race car which was designed to withstand the second most demanding and testing race after the Nürburgring 24h, the Le Mans 24h.

Those bumps are in no way capable in unsettling the car -unless- you are driving the car in an unresponsible way for the roads. You guys have seen the usually red/white kerbs in the corners of a racetrack? The height of each kerb bump is about 10-15 cms high and are located 20-30 cms after another and driving the car the right way it manages those easily. It is a very stiff and very fast car and the owners know exactly what they were and how they behaved when they bought them.

If this isn't a mechanical failure, and I seriously doubt it is unless the car hasn't been maintained properly, the responsibility lies with the driver. Doesn't matter what car you're in, it's only you, and you alone, that can make it dangerous.

I agree. If the Botts' dots were to blame, it would only be partially so - and only because of the speed and/or angle that the car was in when it ran over them. The CGT was built for the track - the only reason why it was on the road is because a hand full of people with more money than skills wanted one of their own, so Porsche complied (and I might add that they were only able to do this for a very short amount of time before the DOT banned further imports in the U.S.)

Rodas and Walker were both experienced drivers and should have known better than to behave the way they did in a non-controlled environment, especially given the history of the model as well as the history of that particular unit.

And I would say that "mechanical failure" due to lack of proper maintenance would legally fall under "human/user error", thus blocking Porsche from any liability in the first place.

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

Any car that cannot go over a speed bump is not the best thing to be running errands with.

No one was running errands with it. It was out for a car show/fundraising event, and they decided to take it for a spin, reportedly to see if anything was wrong with it.