Journalist test drive cost him $174,000

In reply to chaparral:

Dude, AGAIN, just because the 1970 LeMans-spec version of this engine can be revved that high, doesn't mean this particular one can!!!

It's very likely that it was built to not such a crazy state of tune to preserve a little more longevity, have less maintenance costs, and/or because it's cheaper to build as some of the race parts are $unobtanium$. It's not a race car any more, it didn't need to have the full 100% gallop to it.

The owner gave the driver a very explicit and specific state of instructions for HIS motor, and when those were exceeded it went bang, end of story.

Maybe I am weird, but whenever I let someone drive my car, I understand that if they bust it up, I'm on my own. It'd be nice if they helped out, but I wouldn't expect it. I mean, maybe if they just flat-footed it straight into a wall or I had video of them saying "Hah, I wonder what happens if I go from 5th to 2nd, these engines are supposed to be tough!", but really, I don't believe anyone would hurt it on purpose.

It's just a basic Miata build, but it would not be fun to replace it, so I don't let any random person drive it.

If I had any expectation other than "I am on my own", I would have written contracts in place.

robert

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Let’s change this a bit. You give your car to a mechanic to find a problem that requires a test drive. He damages the car. Who do you think should pay? What if he can’t afford it? After all, you let him drive the car, you knew something could happen.

That's what insurance is for. Apples and oranges.

Not really, IMHO - how the mechanic pays (through insurance or not) isn't really relevant to whether the owner of the car pays or the mechanic. The journalist was driving the car for personal gain as part of his business. He's not insured for that particular failure but chose to take the chance. Driver error resulted in an expensive failure. Don't get me wrong, it REALLY sucks, but that's why these things need to be in writing. Don't forget, it sucks for the owner of the car too!

Interesting point. If I was a free-lance journalist who ran around driving 2 million dollar cars, you can bet your sweet ass I'd have SOME kind of policy in place to cover my ass.

I've got about 5 times the coverage than what I need at the shop. I also don't lose sleep over the fear of damaging somebody's stuff.

As far as who's at fault, I guess I'm on the fence. As a berkeleying millionaire muckety muck, wouldn't you look at this guy and go "If this guy berkeleys up my car, there's no berkeleying way in a million years he'll be able to pay for it."

I can see both sides of it. IF there's something in writing, then that's pretty cut and dry. Lesson: Never do $2 million worth of business on a berkeleying word and a handshake, dumbass.

robertcope wrote: Maybe I am weird, but whenever I let someone drive my car, I understand that if they bust it up, I'm on my own. It'd be nice if they helped out, but I wouldn't expect it. I mean, maybe if they just flat-footed it straight into a wall or I had video of them saying "Hah, I wonder what happens if I go from 5th to 2nd, these engines are supposed to be tough!", but really, I don't believe anyone would hurt it on purpose. It's just a basic Miata build, but it would not be fun to replace it, so I don't let any random person drive it. If I had any expectation other than "I am on my own", I would have written contracts in place. robert

You are not weird. This is also why I generally don't let anyone other than my wife drive my car, and why I don't like driving other people's cars. I learned the hard way; I totaled my buddy's car when I was 16, which wiped out the ~$2k I had saved up for a car. Good lessons are hard learned.

I usually say "NO" to drives in other people's cars. In the event that someone is all "You've GOT to berkeleying drive this thing," and a couple people on this board might be able to attest to this, the next words out of my mouth will be "You know if I wad this thing up, I can't afford to fix it, right?"

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Let’s change this a bit. You give your car to a mechanic to find a problem that requires a test drive. He damages the car. Who do you think should pay? What if he can’t afford it? After all, you let him drive the car, you knew something could happen.

Taking a car to a mechanic because it's in need of repair and requires a test drive (his services) is in no way similar to choosing to loaning your car to somebody who has absolutely no critical reason for driving it just so you can see it on the cover of a magazine. Also, please provide the name of your mechanic who pays you for the privilege of an opportunity to diagnose your car...As I would like to take my car in to him from time to time

BoxheadTim wrote: This might not be such a big deal if you're, say, FoMoCo and the car is paid out of your marketing budget, but if you are a small time collector or an owner who built up the car over a few years, this can be a big issue.

Which is exactly why the small time collectors or barely-owners shouldn't be handing over the keys to their prized possession.

I'm not afraid to drive horrifically expensive cars if they're not horribly unforgiving or hard to control. I'll stay well clear of the limits of the car unless it's a racing situation, and if it is I'll carefully work my way up to 9/10ths and not exceed it unless the owner requests it.

Now if it revs like an F1 and has no limiter, has scary handling, "vintage" braking, super-heavy controls, or does easy-peasy 5-2 shifts like my uncle's Kia, those are things to be afraid of and I might not want to drive such a car in a racing situation, or at all. I wouldn't drive a Countach or older Diablo on a track for instance since they have most of the above traits.

Especially since the writer admitted in a signed statement that he caused the damage, as well as the owner giving him explicit operating instructions?

Javelin wrote: In reply to chaparral: Dude, AGAIN, just because the 1970 LeMans-spec version of this engine *can* be revved that high, *doesn't* mean this particular one can!!! It's very likely that it was built to not such a crazy state of tune to preserve a little more longevity, have less maintenance costs, and/or because it's cheaper to build as some of the race parts are $unobtanium$. It's not a race car any more, it didn't need to have the full 100% gallop to it. The owner gave the driver a very explicit and specific state of instructions for HIS motor, and when those were exceeded it went bang, end of story.

@ Javlin,

You are kind of correct here but I will take it even further. People need to read the Judgment. It is specifically stated that the 917 motors should not go over 7k and sites other 917's from 1970 that did and there motors failed. Other cars of the period may rev more but after reading the Judgment and there statement that the cars in the 1970 race had motor failures when revved over 7k leads me to believe that these motors will not stay together if you exceed 7K. (Why I like Ferrari's

I will re quote from the court judgment as it seems that others have missed this.

From the court judjment said: (2) before he went off on his own, after a photo shoot, to test the car the Defendant was specifically instructed by the Claimant and Mr Webb, to ensure that the care was not over revved beyond 7,000 RPM by missing the synchromesh gears, otherwise the engine would break as notoriously happened in 1970 involving Jo Siffert and then Vic Elford when the Porsche team lost two 917’s at Le Mans. The Defendant accepts that he gave this assurance as he was ‘not competing and was not under pressure to deliver a fastest lap.’

It amazes me how much hate there is for people with expensive cars.

C'mon man. "Hate" is a little bit of a stretch, isn't it? It's not like I'm some freaking socialist hippy who thinks the whole world should work on a sliding scale. I just think if I were a multi-millionaire, I'd have the common goddamned sense not to toss the keys to a guy who makes $50k a year, knowing they there's no way in hell they could ever pay for it if they wad it up, know what I mean?

A $2 million car and a $2,000 car are not the same thing.

Maybe I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. I know we're all the smartest guys in the world, and we'd NEEEEEVER hop in the driver's seat of a car we couldn't stroke a check for, but if we did, and wadded it up, wouldn't hope for a little bit of common sense and decency on the part of the owner?

One blip to 8200rpm causes 174K in damages..

Come on..

So how much is a rev limiter for this car?

insane..

ronholm wrote: One blip to 8200rpm causes 174K in damages..

Overrevving it didn't cause $174k in damages. Overrevving it and then going to court did - the actual damage to the engine is only about a 1/3rd of the whole thing.

Datsun1500 wrote: It amazes me how much hate there is for people with expensive cars. If this was not an expensive car, people would be on the owners side. If he rented a Hyundai Sonata from Enterprise and chose not to take the insurance, would you expect Enterprise to eat any damage?

Where is there any ill will towards people with nice cars?? In principle, I don't think it matters one bit if it's a $20XX Challenge car or an original 250GTO....Other than the number of people that can afford to repair/replace it, and therefore take on the risk of driving it themself or possibly letting others drive it. I would also want to compare the contract required to rent through enterprise with the one between the collector and the journalist, before attempting to draw too many parallels there.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Driven5 wrote: Where is there any ill will towards people with nice cars?? In principle, I don't think it matters one bit if it's a $20XX Challenge car or an original 250GTO.

How many times have people said the "millionaire" owner should eat it? That's the difference. If someone came on this board and said they were at an autocross and someone did $1,000 worth of damage to their car and told them to berkeley off, there would be 5 pages of people telling him to sue, do $2,000 worth of damage to the other guys car, berkeley his hamster, etc.

Nope. Sorry. Disagree.

I had a friend spin a bearing in my Saturn during an autocross. Not once did I ask him for anything. I repaired it and smiled.

Yeah, if he had slammed it into a wall, I would have been irked, but would not have told him he owed me a car. MY car is in a racing situation, and "ish", as they say, happens.

I am a habitual car borrower, so maybe I'm skewed.

poopshovel wrote: I usually say "NO" to drives in other people's cars.

Agree with this, too. It is really, really rare when I drive another person's car. And when I do, it is at, like 6/10th or something, very boring.

I took a buddy's Exige out recently, no problems. The next session out, with him driving, a rear suspension bolt failed due to fatigue (he has like 95K miles on this thing, probably 75% of that is on the track, no joke). No real damage, thankfully, but I was left thinking, "Wow, what if that had happened with me in the car?" Obviously, it was a fatigue failure, but if it had happened while I was driving and it had caused me to put it into the wall or something.... yikes!

robert

Datsun1500 wrote: How many times have people said the "millionaire" owner should eat it? That's the difference. If someone came on this board and said they were at an autocross and someone did $1,000 worth of damage to their car and told them to berkeley off, there would be 5 pages of people telling him to sue, do $2,000 worth of damage to the other guys car, berkeley his hamster, etc.

Since when is it derogatory to call somebody a millionaire if they are one? By definition, owning a $2M car makes you a millionaire even if you don't have another penny to your name. Feel free to post links to any threads here where people told the thousandaire owner of a former $200X Challenge car to bankrupt the hundredaire it was loaned to over $70 worth of unintentional damage.

Driven5 wrote: Since when is it derogatory to call somebody a millionaire if they are one? By definition, owning a $2M car makes you a millionaire even if you don't have another penny to your name. Feel free to post links to any threads here where people told the thousandaire owner of a former $200X Challenge car to bankrupt the hundredaire it was loaned over $100 of unintentional damage.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether the guy is a millionaire or not or whether we're talking about million dollar cars or not. If they had an agreement that the journalist was to pay for damages incurred during his driving, it is not relevant that the owner can afford to cover the repairs himself or that the journalist may be bankrupted by covering the repairs as agreed. The journalist is an adult, made a decision not to take out an insurance policy, etc.

People seem to dislike folks that have more wealth than they have. It is kind of crazy to watch.

robert

In reply to Javelin:

LeMans spec for a car expected to have a huge inherent power advantage is probably the most conservative specification I can think of for a racing engine. It's "turned down" all the way from a sprint race or qualifying spec.

Anything less would require this thing to be basically a passenger-car engine - in which case, why wouldn't the engine builder have recommended a modern ignition box with a low rev limiter?

You guys realize that no rev limiter can protect against a mechanical overrev, right? It doesn't matter if the motor SHOULD have been able to take it, the owner of the car said the redline should be 7000. Piper knows a thing or two about these cars, quite a bit more than a bunch of internet spectators. The driver took it to 8200 and broke it. Seems to me the owner knew his stuff in this regard.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to Driven5: The attitude here is people think because the guy has money, he should cover the negligence of the guy that doesn't. That's wrong. Having the ability to cover the loss does not make it your responsibility to do so, not having the money does not let you off the hook. We will never agree as long as you think it's OK to damage someones property and not be responsible. That is really what this comes down to, personal responsibility. How is the owner of the car, who was not in the car at any way responsible for the damage?

Exactly.

I saw the Le Mans-winning Aston take a hit at the Classic Le Mans this year. In that case, it was very likely a pro driver who had been asked to drive the car for the owner. In that case, I'll bet there was a solid agreement saying that the owner was liable for the damages, as the driver was basically an employee and the owner benefited from having his car on display.

In this case, the car was rented for a low-risk photo session and fluffy "classic race car comparison". The owner stood to gain nothing, the driver was the one who was the instigator. By his own admission in writing to the insurance company, he killed the engine. He should be responsible for the approximate $75k in damage, regardless of who has the money. He broke it, he should fix it. When he refused and it went to court, that's when things got really expensive.

Yes, I take my cars on track. But I drive them in such a manner as to preserve them, because I don't want to damage them. This makes me a Bob Costas, sure. But it gives me the opportunity to do stuff and drive stuff I wouldn't otherwise. I've also had the chance to drive an expensive high performance car with a crap shifter - a supercharged Atom. I probably ran it at about 50% of its potential and never came near the redline of the motor.

Come to think of it, I've paid to repair a company car that was damaged when I was at the wheel (hit some curbing, opened up a previously damaged oil pan). Meanwhile, the only crash damage I've had to repair on the Targa Miata came with someone else at the wheel. All he ever did was tell me how mild the "off" was despite evidence to the contrary. Coincidentally, he's not been behind the wheel of one of my cars since. Only two other people have, because it's been proven to me that some people don't feel responsible for their actions.

In reply to chaparral:

You are assuming that 1970-spec competition parts are still available or that the engine is either 100% race or a passenger engine. BS man! I can't get AMC race engine parts from 1970 anymore, and they had about 10x the number built versus 917's, and they were all in the US. Even if I could get everything, why would I make a full-tilt racing-spec version for my clone/tribute car that just sits around? And why would I wire up a bright yellow Accel Super Coil to my aesthetically correct car as a "rev limiter"?

You are reaching further than a politician with a pork barrel man. Even if everything on that engine was A-1 perfect 1970 LeMans-spec, the driver was explicitly instructed not to exceed 7K RPM's and he did it anyway, and admitted it was 100% his fault. Why would he even need to be near 7K RPM's during a photo shoot anyway?

I think the big emotional part of this is that the writer is berkeleyed. He has to sell his house and declare bankruptcy and he's, well, berkeleyed. I offered a kid a seat in my Mazda2 for this next weekend. If he breaks a wheel doing something stupid, I expect he'll offer to pay for it. If he rolls the car over, it doesn't matter how much he would want to help me, he can't. I'm not willing to destroy someone's life over a car, especially a car that I let them drive. When you're in two different income brackets it's easy to forget that something annoying to you can literally destroy the life of someone else. Who wants to do that? The 917 owner does. He's willing to completely wreck this guys life over a missed shift and a blown up engine. That's.....that's just not cool.

In reply to mazdeuce:

The owner was renting out a car to a professional journalist who contacted him about making an article for his own personal (writer's) income. This isn't letting your buddy have a go at an autocross, it's business. The writer should have had insurance, and didn't. He admitted fault. He's liable. Why shouldn't the car owner be paid?!? Because he's richer than the other guy? That's honkey and you know it.

The end result was partly the choice of the driver. The original bill was $75k. Not necessarily enough to ruin someone's life, although it would sting most of us pretty badly. The driver said no, the car I rented and broke is your problem and it went to court. Well, it turns out that might have been a bad choice as the court disagreed with him.

It looks like the big bad rich guy screwing over the little guy until you actually look into it further, then it looks like an ass refusing to take responsibility for breaking someone else's stuff.

How many times have people said the "millionaire" owner should eat it?

Zero? Do I win a prize?

In reply to mazdeuce:

Exactly. If this guy was outright negligent or reckless then yeah he deserves to have to pay for it, massive as the costs are, having been warned ahead of time and knowing the costs.

But say he made an honest mistake...kinda rough to wreck a guy's life over that when the same cost is (presumably, in this case) just a moderate inconvenience to the owner.

Let's scale it down. Say, for the sake of argument, I let a 3rd-world broke-ass unemployed friend of mine drive my 'rolla and by honest mistake he 5-2 shifts it and blows the engine to kingdom come, causing say $2k in damages. Now to me that's a pretty big chunk of change, I wouldn't have access to that car for a good long while, it would put a big dent in my bank account. If I try to make him pay for it, his family would be out on the street...is it just me or does something seem wrong there?