AMT Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2015/9/29/Paul-Walker-s-Daughter-Sues-Porsche-7729525/ .. Is there anything they won't attempt to sue over there?? The car... likely.. was being driven fast, drive fast, you risk crashing. Sueing a car company because its a twitchy thing or that it 'only' has equivilent Cvic type safety side structures is ridiculous. Opinions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Blame the lawyers, they're the ones that put the idea in her head, promise. Besides, I don't know why she's complaining, apparently from all the Paul Walker stickers I see on cars he's glad that he died in a burning fiery mess. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WINKJ Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 It sounds a bit odd, but I always find it interesting that the trees don't break or move too much when hit by a car at serious speed... nature is a pretty cool thing. AMT, I agree that its frustrating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 It's just the nature of their culture. If it were possible many North Americans would sue god for their ugliness or if they're not religious, their parents for their genectic stupidity/ugliness they've inherited. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codders Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Blame the lawyers, they're the ones that put the idea in her head, promise. Exactly, this the Devil's work (lawyers) preying on a grieving teenager who wants someone to blame. Call me weird but I blame the driver doing 95 mph on a 45 mph public road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Really? You find it acceptable a VERY expensive supercar bursts into flames when crashed........ And this is not a first from Porsche, considering that the recalled a load of recent GT3 cars for what exactly...... oh YES bursting into flames. If it was the impact, fine, but the car burst into flames after hitting a tree........... that is not acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Not sure if serious... It hit a tree. Very hard. Because the driver was being a knob. If it had lightly tapped it and spontaneously combusted then fair enough, but this thing had already passed the incredibly stringent US crash test regs, and had hit the tree at over 90MPH! That's huge. I'm not surprised at all the fuel tank ruptured, tbh. I wouldn't necessarily expect any car's fuel tank to stay in one piece if you hit a solid object at that speed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Not sure if serious... It hit a tree. Very hard. Because the driver was being a knob. If it had lightly tapped it and spontaneously combusted then fair enough, but this thing had already passed the incredibly stringent US crash test regs, and had hit the tree at over 90MPH! That's huge. I'm not surprised at all the fuel tank ruptured, tbh. I wouldn't necessarily expect any car's fuel tank to stay in one piece if you hit a solid object at that speed. For a Porsche Supercar capable of 200mph and costing silly money, I would..... If she can prove that Porsche was aware of the points that have been raised then she should be sueing Edited September 30, 2015 by grahamc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullet Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) The thing is that when the accident first happened all the evidence pointed towards mechanical failure of some sort, porsche took the car away and never released their findings. If it was your dad that died and the evidence pointed to manufacturer error would you do nothing ??? now that annoys me. Edited September 30, 2015 by Bullet 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullet Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Really? You find it acceptable a VERY expensive supercar bursts into flames when crashed........ And this is not a first from Porsche, considering that the recalled a load of recent GT3 cars for what exactly...... oh YES bursting into flames. If it was the impact, fine, but the car burst into flames after hitting a tree........... that is not acceptable. Thanks for bringing some sanity to this post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Not sure if serious... It hit a tree. Very hard. Because the driver was being a knob. If it had lightly tapped it and spontaneously combusted then fair enough, but this thing had already passed the incredibly stringent US crash test regs, and had hit the tree at over 90MPH! That's huge. I'm not surprised at all the fuel tank ruptured, tbh. I wouldn't necessarily expect any car's fuel tank to stay in one piece if you hit a solid object at that speed. For a Porsche Supercar capable of 200mph and costing silly money, I would..... If she can prove that Porsche was aware of the points that have been raised then she should be sueing WTF? You are actually being serious? As Dan said, its passed all of the regulations it had to and was CLEARLY being used in an inappropriate manner ........... or are you saying that all cars should be able to withstand a 90mph collision into a tree? Thinking about it, last time I was drifting I hit a wall and hurt my elbow, maybe I should sue Nissan for not providing enough padding on the inside of their cars? Or maybe every car sold should be governed to 55mph and brake for itself, that would sort it out. The thing is 1 step away from a racecar, no doubt he loved it because of its performance and rawness (and lack of stability control) ......... but he ran out of talent, thats not anyones fault other Paul Walkers. Id it had burst into flames before it impacted then maybe theres a case ....... but it didnt, his actions lead to his death, not any kind of negligence on the part of Porsche. Edited September 30, 2015 by docwra 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The thing is that when the accident first happened all the evidence pointed towards mechanical failure of some sort, porsche took the car away and never released their findings. If it was your dad that died and the evidence pointed to manufacturer error would you do nothing ??? now that annoys me. If you were the police investigating the accident and expected mechanical failure, why would you let Porsche take the car to investigate? wouldn't you use an independent or a police specialist? That seems odd... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) 90mph into a tree, fuel tank first (which is just behind where PW was sitting). Lets look at your average family saloon, into a tree at 55mph head first (skip to 3:23 for the result). I'd say the Porsche did a reasonable job. That laguna would have been damaged far more if it hadn't taken the hit directly into the engine/crumple zone. 90mph straight into the side of the vehicle, directly into the corner of the fuel tank. you'll never have a tank not rupture from that. The only fuel tank that MIGHT take a hit like that would be a fuel bladder like they use in F1. edit: embedding the video Edited September 30, 2015 by AliveBoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Those poor trees. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullet Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 http://jalopnik.com/tag/porsche-carrera-gt-fire "This Porsche Carrera GT caught fire at a track day at the Shanghai International Circuit, burning to a crisp shell before marshals were able to extinguish the blaze. Strangely poetic accident report below." http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/13/rodas-widow-suing-porsche-carrera-gt-crash-paul-walker-report/ "Porsche paid part of a multi-million-dollar settlement after two were killed on a track when their Carrera GT struck a slower-moving Ferrari" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 From the first link ....... a car caught fire, there was no accident, it happens. From that second link Bullet just posted: "the lack of a crash cage" Last time I checked a cage isnt necessary, particularly in a state where the speed limit is 55mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The thing is that when the accident first happened all the evidence pointed towards mechanical failure of some sort, porsche took the car away and never released their findings. Proof? On both counts, please. Perhaps we should all drive at 5mph with a man and a flag in front, to prevent us crashing and rupturing our fuel tanks? Graham, you track your GT-R, have you ever given any thought to how strong the fuel tank is on that if you bin it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMT Posted September 30, 2015 Author Share Posted September 30, 2015 Seen on an updated post Porsche have responded claiming no liability...which is fair point. It.the car..should still be checked for any issues but its legal, sold legal, met safety measures. In the real world you hit anything at 90mph its not gonna end well. Car safety is good but there not designed for you to crash at those speeds... only race cars might. And despite one of their...gripes shall we say that it was being marketed as a race car for the road...its still 'for the road'. Regardless of it being a family not thinking straight or prey hunting lawyers. This is not how you respond to your familys death. Fair enough if you were trying to change some form of safwty but all it seems...and would be..is depositing cash from porsches bank into theirs... and for what?...cos they can?? Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Not sure if serious... It hit a tree. Very hard. Because the driver was being a knob. If it had lightly tapped it and spontaneously combusted then fair enough, but this thing had already passed the incredibly stringent US crash test regs, and had hit the tree at over 90MPH! That's huge. I'm not surprised at all the fuel tank ruptured, tbh. I wouldn't necessarily expect any car's fuel tank to stay in one piece if you hit a solid object at that speed. For a Porsche Supercar capable of 200mph and costing silly money, I would..... If she can prove that Porsche was aware of the points that have been raised then she should be sueing WTF? You are actually being serious? As Dan said, its passed all of the regulations it had to and was CLEARLY being used in an inappropriate manner ........... or are you saying that all cars should be able to withstand a 90mph collision into a tree? Thinking about it, last time I was drifting I hit a wall and hurt my elbow, maybe I should sue Nissan for not providing enough padding on the inside of their cars? Or maybe every car sold should be governed to 55mph and brake for itself, that would sort it out. The thing is 1 step away from a racecar, no doubt he loved it because of its performance and rawness (and lack of stability control) ......... but he ran out of talent, thats not anyones fault other Paul Walkers. Id it had burst into flames before it impacted then maybe theres a case ....... but it didnt, his actions lead to his death, not any kind of negligence on the part of Porsche. Oh yes, they have such strict controls, looks at what VW was getting away with. Not to mention the recently recalled GT3 Porsche! Yes and I would expect a hell of a lot more from a safety point of view from a car like that. The thing is that when the accident first happened all the evidence pointed towards mechanical failure of some sort, porsche took the car away and never released their findings. Proof? On both counts, please. Perhaps we should all drive at 5mph with a man and a flag in front, to prevent us crashing and rupturing our fuel tanks? Graham, you track your GT-R, have you ever given any thought to how strong the fuel tank is on that if you bin it? Yes of course I have.... GTR at 100mph into a metal barrier, I dont see any flames, in fact I believe the drive walks away from the crash. Seen on an updated post Porsche have responded claiming no liability...which is fair point. It.the car..should still be checked for any issues but its legal, sold legal, met safety measures. In the real world you hit anything at 90mph its not gonna end well. Car safety is good but there not designed for you to crash at those speeds... only race cars might. And despite one of their...gripes shall we say that it was being marketed as a race car for the road...its still 'for the road'. Regardless of it being a family not thinking straight or prey hunting lawyers. This is not how you respond to your familys death. Fair enough if you were trying to change some form of safwty but all it seems...and would be..is depositing cash from porsches bank into theirs... and for what?...cos they can?? Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk Of course they would claim that.... Im not saying that there was something wrong with the car, but porsches seem to have a history of bursting into flames and IF there were shortcuts made, then the lawsuit is legit. I dont doubt at an accident at that speed would hurt like all hell, but I would expect the car not be a fireball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Yes of course I have.... GTR at 100mph into a metal barrier, I dont see any flames, in fact I believe the drive walks away from the crash. As mentioned above , , your car will only burst in to flames if it hits a tree Edited September 30, 2015 by DoogyRev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 This is ridiculous. I genuinely cannot tell if you actually believe the tripe you're spouting, or if you're trolling me hard. He binned a car at 90mph into a tree. A solid tree. It's not realistic in the slightest to expect to walk away from that at all, regardless of car. Sure, it can happen, but then people die after crashes at half the speed too. It was a crappy sequence of events (wrong speed, wrong thing to hit, wrong angle to hit it at etc) that led to the car going up in flames. That's it. End of. No one else to blame, no fault on Porsche, just a crappy thing that happens. I can't understand how someone as clearly intelligent as yourself cannot see that. It's like finding out Stephen Hawking believes in the tooth fairy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/pembroke-pines/fl-pines-i-75-fatal-crash-20150928-story.html Oh look, a GT-R got set on fire after the driver was acting like a berk! They're clearly not safe! Let's sue Nissan! You see how silly this looks? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 It's like finding out Stephen Hawking believes in the tooth fairy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Yes of course I have.... GTR at 100mph into a metal barrier, I dont see any flames, in fact I believe the drive walks away from the crash. As mentioned above , , your car will only burst in to flames if it hits a tree Sorry I am wrong . . GTR's will just catch fire on their own with out actually crashing in to anything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBcSuKA6pPc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) This is ridiculous. I genuinely cannot tell if you actually believe the tripe you're spouting, or if you're trolling me hard. He binned a car at 90mph into a tree. A solid tree. It's not realistic in the slightest to expect to walk away from that at all, regardless of car. Sure, it can happen, but then people die after crashes at half the speed too. It was a crappy sequence of events (wrong speed, wrong thing to hit, wrong angle to hit it at etc) that led to the car going up in flames. That's it. End of. No one else to blame, no fault on Porsche, just a crappy thing that happens. I can't understand how someone as clearly intelligent as yourself cannot see that. It's like finding out Stephen Hawking believes in the tooth fairy. No he didnt.... he was the passenger! So you are now the be all and end all of everything and I cannot have an opinion??? How far up your own ass are you? http://www.sun-senti...0928-story.html Oh look, a GT-R got set on fire after the driver was acting like a berk! They're clearly not safe! Let's sue Nissan! You see how silly this looks? Fire and rescue were called, but at NO point do they state the car caught fire....... It rolled over a few times and spread debris over 200 yards. Who looks silly now????? Edited September 30, 2015 by grahamc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.