![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:23 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:24 |
|
If it is Porsches fault, then I’m going to sue every Brewery because their beer gave me a beer gut...
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:25 |
|
Nope
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:28 |
|
No...what a stupid law suit
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:30 |
|
I don’t think so. It is an older car and I remember something about old tires. And it wasn’t Porsche making them go way over the speed limit. And i’m not sure but I don’t think the Viper of the same year had traction control either. Yes, I realize there is a drastic difference between cars.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:30 |
|
no, i’m pretty sure they dont have to pass the wrap-around-a-tree-test
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:34 |
|
I read on some article on the FP that the tires on the Porsche had to be replaced on a set schedule as they would deteriorate. Apparently, the tires on this car were way overdue, making it more prone to losing control.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:36 |
|
Nope. Driving way over the limit in a poorly maintained car with garbage tyres is the fault of the owner for letting any of that happen.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:37 |
|
Maybe not, but I do think that supercars (and anything that goes over 155MPH) should have stricter crash regs, I don’t think they should legally be responsible, but I do think they have a moral responsibility to make them as safe as possible for a high speed crash.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:38 |
|
And tires have expiration dates anyway.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:38 |
|
having the fuel tank right behind the passenger compartment probably wasn’t the smartest move.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:39 |
|
Lol wut? In all seriousness Porsche has ZERO liability in this case. The car was built to the regulations and standards of the time. The crash was caused by poor judgement and bad luck. “The court document contends the 2005 Carrera GT should have come with an electronic stability control system to protect against swerving.”. I am also fairly positive this wasn’t mandated until just a few years ago.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:39 |
|
Noope!
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:41 |
|
That is very true.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:41 |
|
Brb, suing Papa Murphy’s for making me fat.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:51 |
|
Fuck no it’s not!
It's like blaming and shooting the messenger, what she and her lawyer(mostly the lawyer I'm guessing) are doing.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:55 |
|
keep in mind where these 155 mph crashes for be designed for, a track, with safety barriers, run offs etc., not a side street.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 11:58 |
|
I bet a lot of this case stems from the story/myth/urban legend that Porsche’s test driver was terrified of the car, especially in poor conditions
![]() 10/01/2015 at 12:05 |
|
All tires degrade with age, but extreme-performance tires degrade much more quickly. After a 3 or 4 years, the tire has “dried-up” (for lack of a better term) and no longer offers the performance/grip that it had when new. This is regardless of mileage. The Carerra GT in question was on it’s original tires which would be way to old/dry/slippery to safely handle a 600 horsepower supercar.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 12:06 |
|
That's basically what I had read as well.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 12:24 |
|
No. It’s an older car with older standards. Also it seems the real culprit was the tires which are a consumable outside of the manufacturers hands. On top of that it was exceeding posted limits.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 12:37 |
|
I initially thought no - Porsche didn’t tell them to jump in a car and haul ass recklessly down a public road on (essentially) junk tires
But i wonder if she has a point about the seat belt anchors. But if the NHTSA signed off on the crash test then......?
![]() 10/01/2015 at 13:59 |
|
It’s not unprecedented. See the recent Jeep recalls/lawsuits for example.
![]() 10/01/2015 at 15:13 |
|
That’s true.